PERALTA v CSC 3.
Petitioner then sent a letter to the Civil Service Commission
August 10 1992 | Padilla J | Ubi lex non distinguit noc nos distinguere
debemos
PETITIONER: Maynard R. Peralta
RESPONDENT: Civil Service Commission
DOCTRINE: Ubi lex non distinguit noc nos distinguere debemos
- In construing words and phrases, the general rule is that in the
absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be
given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning.
- For words are presumed to have been employed by the
lawmaker in their ordinary and common use and acceptation.
- The grammatical and ordinary reading of a statute must be
presumed to yield its correct sense.
FACTS
1. Peralta was appointed as Trade Specialist III in the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI) and was classified as
“Reinstatement/Permanent” position
a. On Dec 1989, he received his initial salary covering the
period from 25 September to 31 October 1989.
b. Since he had no accumulated credit leaves, DTI
deducted his absences (6 days) from his salary for
a certainperiod of time since he had no accumulated
leave credits. Theseabsences were on 2 long weekends
(F, S, Su).
2. Petitioner sent a memorandum to Amando T. Alvis (Chief
General Administrative Service) inquiring as to the law on
salary deductions, if the employee has no leave credits.
a. Alvis answered by saying that Chapter 5.49 of the
Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil
Service which states that "when an employee is on
leave without pay on a day before or on a day
immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday,
such Saturday, Sunday, or Holiday shall also be without
pay (CSC, 2nd Ind., February 12, 1965)."
Chairman Patricia A. Sto.Tomas with the question of: "Is an
employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a day
before or on a day immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday
or Holiday, also considered on leave of absence without pay on
such Saturday, Sunday or Holiday?"
a. Peralta’s claim: There is no provision in the General
Leave Law (can be found in the Revised Administrative
Code), Old Civil Service Law (RA 2260), Civil Service
Decree or Civil Service Rules and Regulation that
supports such CSC rule.
4. Commissioner Sto. Tomas promulgated a Resolution stating
that DTI’s action was proper. The resolution cited a
2nd Endorsement way back in 1965 that involved the case of
another employee who was absent 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 renderedb.
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. Itdiscourages the employees to have long
weekends resultingto prejudice of the government and
the public in general.
5. CSC denied Peralta’s MR through another Resolution so he
brought the case to the SC
ISSUE: Whether the provision of RA No. 2625 applies only to those
who have accumulated leave credits and not to those who have none,
as construed by the Civil Service Commission in its policy guideline
HELD
 The policy actually interpreted RA 2625 amending the
Revised Administrative 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. It does not say anything
about leaves without pay
o Intent: To exclude Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays in
the computation of leaves since employees are not
require to go to office during those days
 Thus, the law speaks of the granting of a right and the law does
not provide for a distinction between those who have
accumulated leave credits and those who have exhausted their
leave credits in order to enjoy such right. Ubi lex non distinguit
nec nos distinguere debemus. The fact remains that government
employees, whether or not they have accumulated leave
credits, are not required by law to work on Saturdays, Sundays
and Holidays and thus they can not be declared absent on such
non-working days. They cannot be or are not considered absent
on non-working days; they cannot and should not be deprived
of their salary corresponding to said non-working days just
because they were absent without pay on the day immediately
prior to, or after said non-working days. A different rule would
constitute a deprivation of property without due process.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, CSC Resolutions No.

90-497 and 90-797 are declared NULL and VOID. The respondent
Commission is directed to take the appropriate action so that
petitioner shall be paid the amounts previously but unlawfully
deducted from his monthly salary as above indicated. No costs.