This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Gloria v. Court Appeals,[22] the Court has distinguished the two types of preventive suspension of civil service employees charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension, to wit: (1) preventive suspension pending investigation;[23] and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the respondent is exonerated.[24] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Gloria v. Court of Appeals,[14] several public school teachers were preventively suspended for 90 days while being investigated for the charge of grave misconduct, among others. Citing Section 51 of the RAC, the Court sustained the imposition of the 90-day preventive suspension pending investigation of the charges, saying: The preventive suspension of civil service employees charged with dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect of duty is authorized by the Civil Service Law. It cannot, therefore, be considered "unjustified," even if later the charges are dismissed so as to justify the payment of salaries to the employee concerned. It is one of those sacrifices which holding a public office requires for the public good xxx.[15] | |||||
|
2000-06-28 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree. It will be recalled that in Jacinto, we upheld the legality of the immediate execution of the dismissal orders issued by Secretary Cariño on the ground that under Section 47(2),[18] Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, the decision of a department secretary confirming the dismissal of an employee under his jurisdiction is executory even pending appeal thereof.[19] Since dismissal orders remain valid and effective until modified or set aside, the intervening period during which an employee is not permitted to work cannot be argued as amounting to unjustified suspension. In Gloria v. Court of Appeals,[20] we further explained that:Preventive suspension pending investigation, as already discussed, is not a penalty but only a means of enabling the disciplining authority to conduct an unhampered investigation. On the other hand, preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension. Thus, §47(4) states that respondent "shall be considered as under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins." On the other hand, if his conviction is affirmed, i.e. if he is not exonerated, the period of his suspension becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal.[21] | |||||