This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Resolution No. 002606 dated 20 November 2000, the CSC denied BACIWA's motion for reconsideration and merely corrected the starting date for determining Bayona's back salaries. The CSC ordered BACIWA to pay Bayona's back salaries and other benefits from 1 December 1995 to 16 May 1999. The dispositive portion of CSC Resolution No. 002606 reads: WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of Bacolod City Water District is hereby denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, BACIWA is directed to pay the back salaries and other benefits of Juanito H. Bayona from December 1, 1995 to May 16, 1999. CSC Resolution No. 00-1281 dated May 26, 2000 is thus modified.[14] BACIWA again filed a petition for review before the appellate court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62275, questioning the award to Bayona. BACIWA sought to set aside or modify CSC Resolution Nos. 001281 and 002606. BACIWA also prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the CSC's enforcement of the resolutions. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| BACIWA states that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits to Bayona. Substantial justice militates against BACIWA's position. Substantial justice cannot be served if we continue to allow BACIWA to treat Bayona as retired at age 60 even after the annulment of its CBA provision mandating retirement at 60 years. When the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 45369 stated that "PD 1146 gives Bayona a right to be compulsorily retired at age 65 and he cannot waive that right because such waiver is contrary to public policy,"[21] the appellate court definitely did not bar Bayona's reinstatement and payment of back salaries and other benefits. If at all, this pronouncement supports Bayona's position. The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 is correct in saying that "as a necessary consequence of his reinstatement to the service, Mr. Bayona must be compensated for [lost] income arising from his illegal removal by forced retirement."[22] The sufficiency and efficacy of a judgment must be tested by its substance rather than its form. In construing a judgment, its legal effects including such effects that necessarily follow because of legal implications, rather than the language used, govern. Also, its meaning, operation, and consequences must be ascertained like any other written instrument. Thus, a judgment rests on the intention of the court as gathered from every part thereof, including the situation to which it applies and the attendant circumstances.[23] BACIWA further insists that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits because of the appellate court's declaration in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 that "[w]ith the Tripartite Committee (that included the CSC), agreeing to continue the existence of said CBA up to its expiry date, there was no bad faith involved in BACIWA's decision to retire Bayona."[24] BACIWA cannot rely on this declaration. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| BACIWA states that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits to Bayona. Substantial justice militates against BACIWA's position. Substantial justice cannot be served if we continue to allow BACIWA to treat Bayona as retired at age 60 even after the annulment of its CBA provision mandating retirement at 60 years. When the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 45369 stated that "PD 1146 gives Bayona a right to be compulsorily retired at age 65 and he cannot waive that right because such waiver is contrary to public policy,"[21] the appellate court definitely did not bar Bayona's reinstatement and payment of back salaries and other benefits. If at all, this pronouncement supports Bayona's position. The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 is correct in saying that "as a necessary consequence of his reinstatement to the service, Mr. Bayona must be compensated for [lost] income arising from his illegal removal by forced retirement."[22] The sufficiency and efficacy of a judgment must be tested by its substance rather than its form. In construing a judgment, its legal effects including such effects that necessarily follow because of legal implications, rather than the language used, govern. Also, its meaning, operation, and consequences must be ascertained like any other written instrument. Thus, a judgment rests on the intention of the court as gathered from every part thereof, including the situation to which it applies and the attendant circumstances.[23] BACIWA further insists that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits because of the appellate court's declaration in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 that "[w]ith the Tripartite Committee (that included the CSC), agreeing to continue the existence of said CBA up to its expiry date, there was no bad faith involved in BACIWA's decision to retire Bayona."[24] BACIWA cannot rely on this declaration. | |||||