You are on page 1of 2

CSC vs.

Gentallan
Facts:
Mayor Jose Salcedo appointed Jocelyn Gentallan as local civil registrar of the Municipality of
Jasaan, Misamis Oriental.
Commissioner Thelma Gaminde of the CSC, when queried about Gentallans qualifications,
confirmed that Gentallans work experience was more than enough to meet the minimum
requirement of three (3) years experience for the position of local civil registrar.
After the lapse of fifteen (15) days without any action rendered by the Sangguniang Bayan
of Jasaan, the appointment was eventually deemed approved.
CSC approved appointment permanently.
However, Rosalina Asis, a research aide in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar, filed a
protest.
CSC dismissed because the protestant was not a qualified next-in-rank.
In the same resolution, however, the CSC reviewed the appointment of respondent Jocelyn
Gentallan. It held that Gentallan was not qualified as she failed to fulfill the required threeyear experience relevant to the position of local civil registrar.
MR denied
Meanwhile, Mayor Paurom ordered respondent to vacate the post as Local Civil Registrar and
directed her to assume her former position as Assistant Registration Officer.
CA found respondent qualified to the position.
Regional Director Jose T. Soria of CSC informed the Mayor CA's decision and advised him to
implement the same and reinstate respondent to the position of Local Civil Registrar.
However, the mayor did not.
Respondent, through her counsel, wrote the CSC requesting for an order directing the
municipality to reinstate her and pay her backwages.
Still, respondent was not reinstated.
Mandamus was filed with damages.
Consequently, the parties reached an agreement. Mayor ordered reinstatement.
Respondent asked the CSC if she was entitled to back salaries, RATA and bonuses.
The CSCR granted the entitlements.
When consulted by the mayor, the provincial attorney agreed that respondent was indeed
entitled pursuant to The final CA order.
However, the mayor still did not give respondent her back salaries, RATA and bonuses.
Respondent requested the CSC for the execution of the CSC order but the CSC reversed it
saying that respondent was not entitled to back salaries and other emoluments as she was
not illegally dismissed from the service as she was reinstated hence, Gentallan cannot be
considered to have been illegally dismissed from the service since her reversion to her
former position was a result of a lawful order of the Commission.

The motion for reconsideration of respondent was denied in CSC Resolution No. 002305
dated October 11, 2000.[12] Gentallan then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for
review assailing the resolutions. The appellate court set aside the CSC Resolutions Nos.
001264 and 002305, and reinstated the Order of CSCRO-10.[13] The Municipality of Jasaan
sought reconsideration but it was denied. The CSC likewise filed a motion for reconsideration
but the same was denied for lack of standing.

Issue:
Whether or not CSC has the standing to appeal a decision
Whether or not respondent Jocelyn Gentallan is entitled to back salaries, RATA and bonuses.

Held:
Yes
Yes, In the instant case, we note that there is no finding that malice or bad faith attended
the illegal dismissal and refusal to reinstate Gentallan by her superior officers. Thus, they
cannot be held personally accountable for her back salaries. The municipal government,
therefore, should disburse funds to answer for her claims resulting from dismissal.

Ratio:
The CSC, as an institution whose primary concern is the effectiveness of the civil service
system, has the standing to appeal a decision which adversely affects the civil service. We
hold, at this juncture, that CSC has the standing to appeal and/or to file its motion for
reconsideration. After a careful review of the circumstances in these consolidated petitions,
we are in agreement with the Court of Appeals that respondent was qualified and eligible for
the position of local civil registrar, and there was no factual nor legal basis for her removal
from said position. The CA order to reinstate her had become final and executory. The CA
decision ought to be upheld. As a permanent appointee to the position, she enjoys security
of tenure. She is likewise entitled to all benefits, rights and privileges attached to the
position. She cannot be removed or dismissed from the service without just cause and
without observing the requirements of due process. An illegally dismissed government
employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to backwages and other monetary
benefits from the time of her illegal dismissal up to her reinstatement. This is only fair and
just because an employee who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is
considered as not having left her office and should be given the corresponding
compensation at the time of her reinstatement. In the instant case, we note that there is no
finding that malice or bad faith attended the illegal dismissal and refusal to reinstate
Gentallan by her superior officers. Thus, they cannot be held personally accountable for her
back salaries. The municipal government, therefore, should disburse funds to answer for her
claims resulting from dismissal.

You might also like