8/10/2019 Peralta v. CSC

1/1

Digest Author: Alexi Calda

PERALTA v. CSC (1992)

Petition: ReviewPetitioner: Maynard PeraltaRespondent: Civil Service CommissionPonencia: Padilla

DOCTRINE:Administrative construction is not necessarily binding upon thecourts. Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside bythe judicial department if there is an error of law, or abuse of power or lack of

jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either theletter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.

FACTS:1. Peralta was a Trade Specialist III in DTI and was classified with a

Reinstatement/Permanent position.

2. DTI deducted his absences (6 days) from his salary for a certainperiod of time since he had no accumulated leave credits. These

absences were on 2 long weekends (F, S, Su).

3. Peralta after writing to their Chief General Administrative Servicesent his inquiry to CSC Chairman Sto. Tomas.- Is an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a daybefore or on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday, Sundayor Holiday, also considered on leave of absence without pay on suchSaturday, Sunday or Holiday?- Peraltas claim: There is no provision in the General Leave Law(can be found in the Revised Administrative Code), Old Civil ServiceLaw, Civil Service Decree or Civil Service Rules and Regulation thatsupports such CSC rule.

4. Commissioner Sto. Tomas promulgated a Resolution stating thatDTIs action was proper. The resolution cited a 2

ndIndorsement way

back in 1965 that involved the case of another employee who wasabsent on from Saturday to Sunday and was leave on Monday.

a. An employee who has no more leave credit in his favor is notentitled to the payment of salary on Saturdays, Sundays orholidays unless such non-working days occur within theperiod of service actually rendered

b. Rationale: It will allow an employee who is on leave for along time to still receive his salary during the weekends inspite of the fact that he has no leave credits anymore. It

discourages the employees to have long weekends resultingto prejudice of the government and the public in general.

5. CSC denied Peraltas MRthrough another Resolution so he broughtthe case to the SC.

ISSUE: WoN the CSC policy is valid

PROVISION: Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service

5.51. When intervening Saturday, Sunday or holiday considered as leavewithout pay when an employee is on leave without pay on a day before oron a day immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, suchSaturday, Sunday or holiday shall also be without pay. (CSC, 2nd Ind., Feb.12, 1965).

RULING + RATIO: NO

Case actually became moot already. CSC issued another Resolutionamending the rule since employees paid on a monthly basis do notwork during the weekends BUT the SC still decided to rule on it.

The policy actually interpreted RA 2625 amending the RevisedAdministrative Code.o Its provisions grant employees 15 days of vacation leave

w/full pay and 15 days of sick leave with full pay each year. Itdoes not say anything about leaves without pay.

o Intent: To exclude Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays in thecomputation of leaves since employees are not require to goto office during those days.

Administrative construction is not necessarily binding upon thecourts. Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or setaside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, or abuse ofpower or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly

conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.o In this case, the construction of CSC is not in accordance

with the legislative intent. The law does not distinguishbetween those who have exhausted their leave credits andthose who have not. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nosdinstuiguire debemus.

o SC called upon CSC and Congress to handle the case ofother employees with similar situations. Deductions must berestored to the employees.

DISPOSITION: Petition is GRANTED. CSC Resolutions are declared NULLand VOID.