Scribd
Upload
165 views1 page

Caniete V Secretary of Education

Herman Caniete and Wilfredo Rosario were public school teachers who were absent from work and charged with participating in strikes in 1990. They were preventively suspended pending investigation and dismissed upon being found guilty. On appeal, they were found guilty only of violating reasonable office rules by failing to file leave applications. Their penalty was reduced to reprimand and they were reinstated. The court affirmed they were entitled to back salaries during their suspension pending appeal since they were eventually exonerated of the more serious charges. While suspensions pending investigation do not require backpay if exonerated, suspensions during appeal do require backpay if the employee is later exonerated and the dismissal reversed.

Uploaded by

Mark Evan Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
165 views1 page

Caniete V Secretary of Education

Herman Caniete and Wilfredo Rosario were public school teachers who were absent from work and charged with participating in strikes in 1990. They were preventively suspended pending investigation and dismissed upon being found guilty. On appeal, they were found guilty only of violating reasonable office rules by failing to file leave applications. Their penalty was reduced to reprimand and they were reinstated. The court affirmed they were entitled to back salaries during their suspension pending appeal since they were eventually exonerated of the more serious charges. While suspensions pending investigation do not require backpay if exonerated, suspensions during appeal do require backpay if the employee is later exonerated and the dismissal reversed.

Uploaded by

Mark Evan Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Caniete v Secretary of Education allegedly participating in the strikes sometime in September and

October 1990. They were eventually exonerated of said charge and


Petitioner: HERMAN CANIETE and WILFREDO ROSARIO found guilty only of violation of reasonable office rules and
Respondent: THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND regulations by failing to file applications for leave of absence. Thus,
SPORTS the penalty of dismissal earlier imposed on them was reduced to
reprimand and their reinstatement was ordered. Moreover, this
Facts: Caniete and Rosario are public school teachers. Both were Court affirmed the payment of back salaries of said teachers
absent on Sept 20 and 21 1990 and are charged by Sec. Isidro Cario, explaining that although "employees who are preventively
Sec of Dep Ed, with alleged participation in the mass strikes then suspended pending investigation are not entitled to the payment of
were placed under preventive suspension. Eventually they were their salaries even if they are exonerated, we do not agree with the
found guilty and immediately dismissed from service. government that they are not entitled to compensation for the
period of their suspension pending appeal if eventually they are
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) set aside the case when it found innocent."
was brought to on appeal. They ruled petitioners were only guilty of
Gross Violation of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules and were the employee who is placed under preventive suspension pending
suspended 3 months w/o pay. investigation is not entitled to compensation because such
suspension "is not a penalty but only a means of enabling the
CSC modified the decision of MSPB and charged petitioners were disciplining authority to conduct an unhampered
guilty of only being absent without necessary leave of absence. investigation." Upon the other hand, there is right to compensation
Petitioners be reinstated without back salaries. for preventive suspension pending appeal if the employee is
eventually exonerated. This is because "preventive
Petitioners elevated case to CA as it disallowed payment of backpay. suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in
CA affirmed CSC effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated
and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed.
Issue: WON petitioners are entitled to their back salaries upon Hence, he should be reinstated with full pay for the period of the
reinstatement after they were found guilty only of violating suspension.
reasonable office rules and regulations and penalized only with
reprimand.

Held: Yes.

The ruling in Gloria vs. Court of Appeals[4] is squarely applicable in


this case as the facts are substantially the same. In Gloria, the public
school teachers therein were either suspended or dismissed for

You might also like