Bautista v. Peralta

Summary

Eduardo Bautista, a government employee, was administratively charged, suspended, and initially dismissed by the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Board of Appeals reduced his penalty to a two-month suspension without pay. After nearly five years of preventive suspension, he was reinstated but denied back wages. The Supreme Court granted his mandamus petition for back salaries, ruling that preventive suspension is merely precautionary, not punitive. Since his two-month penalty was effectively served during the initial period of preventive suspension, he was entitled to back wages for the remaining period. The Court emphasized that denying back wages would improperly convert preventive suspension into the penalty itself, effectively amending the Board's decision. The case establishes the principle that government employees are entitled to back salaries when administrative penalties are less than the preventive suspension period already served.