FACTS:

This case pertains to public school teachers who were administratively charged and placed under preventive suspension for not reporting to work during strikes and walkouts in 1990. After an investigation, the teachers were found guilty of various charges and received either dismissal or suspension as penalty.

Some of the teachers appealed their cases to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB), but their appeals were dismissed due to failure to file their appeal memorandum on time. On further appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the decision of the MSPB was affirmed, except for one teacher whose penalty was reduced to a reprimand for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

The teachers filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the CSC for three teachers, while ruling in favor of one teacher by finding him guilty only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations, resulting in a reprimand instead of suspension.

The teachers moved for reconsideration, seeking full exoneration of all charges and the payment of salaries during their suspension. The Court of Appeals maintained the finding of guilt and imposition of reprimand but ruled that the teachers were entitled to the payment of salaries during their suspension, exceeding the 90-day period.

The Secretary of Education, Culture, and Sports filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Thus, the petitioner elevated the case through a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioner argues that the government should not be held accountable for salary payments during the continued suspension due to the teachers' appeal. Additionally, the petitioner contends that under the law, the teachers are considered under preventive suspension during the appeal period and, therefore, not entitled to salary payments.

The key issue in this case is the entitlement of employees who are exonerated after preventive suspension pending investigation to receive the payment of salaries for the duration of their suspension. The Civil Service Act of 1959 initially allowed salary payments during preventive suspension if the employee is exonerated, but this provision was removed in 1975. The current Civil Service Law and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 explicitly state that preventive suspension shall be without pay.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondents who were exonerated from charges but reprimanded for absence without leave are entitled to back salaries for the period of their suspension.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that respondents are entitled to back salaries, allowances, and other benefits during the period of their suspension beyond the ninety (90) day preventive suspension. The Court of Appeals' decision, which affirmed the payment for such period, is upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Preventive Suspension and Right to Compensation: According to the Civil Service Law, employees who are under preventive suspension are not entitled to compensation during the period of preventive suspension pending investigation. However, if exonerated, they may be entitled to back salaries during the preventive suspension pending appeal, beyond the initial 90-day period.

2. Preventive Suspension Pending Investigation: Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty but a means to prevent the respondent from influencing the investigation. Employees exonerated after such a suspension are not automatically entitled to salaries during the suspension period.

3. Legislative Intent in Amendments: The removal of certain provisions regarding salary payments during suspension in amended statutes indicates the legislature's intent to change the meaning and effects of these statutes, specifically to disallow such payments.