Facts

Atty Pacete opt for an optional retirement as Division Chief of CHR in 1989. The CHR and GSIS had conflicting decisions regarding the approval – CHR approved but GSIS won’t qualify him for retirement. Atty Pacete requested CHR to be reinstated, was denied, then elevated to MSPB. MSPB favored Pacete’s reinstatement and ordered payment of back wages and other benefits. Civil Service commission affirmed MSPB. CHR referred Pacete to the Ombudsman for criminal charges in relation to non-settlement of obligations.

Issues and Ruling

(1) Is Pacete entitled to backwages and other benefits?

(1) Yes. The issue here is whether or not he is entitled to optional retirement, and not his incompetence and inefficiency. The latter was only raised belatedly 

(2) Is CHR justified in refusing Pacete to continue rendering service?

No. CHR only raised the issue of incompetence and inefficiency as a ground for non-reinstatement of Pacete only after it allowed Pacete to undergo the process of optional retirement. If he is indeed guilty of incomeptence, he should have seasonable filed administrative charges against Pacete. The dismissal was also illegal for it lacked due notice and hearing.