SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 228236. January 27, 2021.]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL ,

petitioner, vs. DAISY B. PANGA-VEGA, respondent.

RESOLUTION

M.V. LOPEZ, J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated April 29, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated
November 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128947.
ANTECEDENTS
On February 2, 2011, Atty. Daisy B. Panga-Vega (Panga-Vega), then
Secretary of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET),
requested authority to avail of the 15 days of special leave benefit under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9710, otherwise known as the ''Magna Carta of
Women," on February 7-11, 14-18, and 21-25, 2011, but not to exceed two
months, to undergo hysterectomy. 4
On February 3, 2011, the HRET approved Panga-Vega's request for
special leave for a period not exceeding two months starting February 7,
2011. 5 On February 7, 2011, she underwent total hysterectomy. 6
On March 7, 2011, after a month of availing of the special leave,
Panga-Vega informed the HRET Chairperson that she was reassuming her
duties and functions. 7 She also presented a medical certificate 8 dated
March 5, 2011, stating that there was "no contraindication to resume light to
moderate activities." On March 9, 2011, she explained that the earlier
medical certificate did not necessarily indicate her fitness to report for work.
9 Thus, she presented another medical certificate 10 of even date stating

that she was already "fit to work" after her physical examination on March 6,
2011.
On March 10, 2011, the HRET directed Panga-Vega to consume her 2-
month special leave given her need for prolonged rest following her
hysterectomy, and in view of a pending investigation on her alleged
alteration or tampering one minutes of the meeting that could subject her to
more stress. 11 On March 14, 2011, she sought reconsideration of this HRET
Resolution. 12 On March 24, 2011, the HRET denied reconsideration
reiterating her need to rest, and also, pointing out the confusion and doubts
regarding her true medical condition as caused by her medical certificates.
13 On April 13, 2011, Panga-Vega filed an appeal with the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) assailing the March 10, 2011 and March 24, 2011 HRET
Resolutions. 14
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On October 9, 2012, the CSC issued a Decision 15 granting the appeal
of Panga-Vega. It ruled that she only needed to present a medical certificate
attesting her physical fitness to return to work and need not exhaust the full
leave she applied for under RA No. 9710. It was further held that applying
the rules on maternity leave, she is entitled to both the commuted money
value of the unexpired portion of the special leave and her salary for actual
services rendered effective the day she reported back for work. On
November 23, 2012, the HRET sought reconsideration, 16 but the CSC denied
this in its Resolution 17 dated February 12, 2013.
On March 19, 2013, the HRET filed a Petition for Review 18 assailing the
foregoing Decision and Resolution of the CSC with the CA. On April 29, 2016,
the CA dismissed the petition. 19 Adopting the CSC's findings, it ruled Panga-
Vega may opt not to consume the full leave she applied for upon her
submission of the medical certificate. It also held that nothing in RA No.
9710 precludes the suppletory application of the rules on maternity leave to
the special leave benefit under RA No. 9710. The HRET sought
reconsideration, but the CA denied this in its Resolution 20 dated November
8, 2016. Hence, this petition. 21
The HRET argues that the CSC should not have applied suppletorily the
rules on maternity leave to the special leave benefit under RA No. 9710. It
also contends that Panga-Vega did not sufficiently comply with the "CSC
Guidelines on the Availment of the Special Leave Benefits for Women under
RA No. 9710" 22 (CSC Guidelines), warranting her return to work.
Panga-Vega counters that the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the
HRET was not authorized to file the instant petition. She further claims that
the suppletory application of the rules on maternity leave to the special
leave benefit is more in accord with the thrust and intent of RA No. 9710. As
to her compliance with the CSC Guidelines, she maintains that her medical
certificate and her attending physician's subsequent clarifications sufficiently
showed her fitness to return to work. 23
THE COURT'S RULING
Before delving into the merits, the issue raised by Panga-Vega
regarding the authority of the HRET to initiate the case before the Court
must first be addressed. She argues that as an agency or instrumentality of
the Government, the statutory counsel of HRET is the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG). She opined that the instant petition should have been filed
by the OSG, not by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the HRET.
The HRET was created by virtue of Section (Sec.) 17, Article VI of the
1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that the House of
Representatives shall have its own Electoral Tribunal that shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its
Members. As a recognized instrumentality of the Government, the Court, in a
catena of cases, exercised over it its expanded judicial power to include the
determination of "whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government." 24
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Meanwhile, the OSG was constituted as the law office of the
Government and shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer as
such. It shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies,
instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. It is tasked to
represent the Government and its officers in the Court, the CA, and all other
courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
Government, or any officer thereof, in his official capacity is a party, among
others. 25
The OSG, however, may be excused from representing the
Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities when there is an express
authorization by the OSG, naming therein the legal officers who are being
deputized in cases involving their respective offices, subject to its
supervision and control, or when the OSG takes a position different from that
of the agency it is duty bound to represent. 26
A perusal of the records shows that there was no express authorization
by the OSG naming the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the HRET as its
deputized legal officers in filing this petition. There was also no proof, let
alone an allegation, that the OSG took a position different from the HRET in
this case. Instead of providing a plausible justification why the OSG did not
represent it, the HRET simply reasoned that the instant petition should be
given course in the interest of a speedy determination of issues. It even
posited that the defect in its filing of the instant petition may be cured upon
a subsequent filing by the OSG of a manifestation and motion ratifying and
adopting it, but there had been no such manifestation and motion in this
case. These facts necessarily evince that HRET lacked the legal capacity to
initiate this case, and the HRET gave no compelling reason for the Court to
disregard this finding.
Even on the merits, however, the petition must still fail.
Section 18 of RA No. 9710 entitles a woman, who has rendered a
continuous aggregate employment service of at least six months for the last
12 months, a special leave of two months with full pay based on her gross
monthly compensation following surgery caused by gynecological disorders.
In relation to this provision, the case involving Panga-Vega gives rise to the
issue of whether the rules on maternity leave under Sec. 14, Rule XVI of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, which
provides that the commuted money value of the unexpired portion of the
special leave need not be refunded, and that when the employee returns to
work before the expiration of her special leave, she may receive both the
benefits granted under the maternity leave law and the salary for actual
services rendered effective the day she reports for work, may have a
suppletory application.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW), acknowledges the need to guarantee the basic
human rights and fundamental freedoms of women through the adoption in
the political, social, economic, and cultural fields, of appropriate measures,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 including legislation, to ensure their full development and advancement. 27
Consistent thereto, no less than the fundamental law of the land imposes on
the State the duty to protect working women by providing safe and healthful
working conditions, as well as facilities and opportunities to enhance their
welfare, and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the
nation. 28
In fulfillment of the foregoing obligation under the CEDAW, and the
1987 Philippine Constitution to advance the rights of women, RA No. 9710
was enacted. This law acknowledges the economic, political, and socio-
cultural realities affecting their work conditions and affirms their role in
nation-building. 29 It guarantees the availability of opportunities, services,
and mechanisms that will allow them to actively perform their roles in the
family, community, and society. As a social legislation, its paramount
consideration is the empowerment of women. Thus, in case of doubt, its
provisions must be liberally construed in favor of women as the beneficiaries.
30

The Court finds it just and more in accord with the spirit and intent of
RA No. 9710 to suppletorily apply the rule on maternity leave to the special
leave benefit. Similar to the special leave benefit under RA No. 9710, a
maternity leave under the Omnibus Rules on Leave seeks to protect the
health and welfare of women, specifically of working mothers, as its primary
purpose is to afford them some measures of financial aid, and to grant them
a period of rest and recuperation in connection with their pregnancies. 31
The special leave benefit should be liberally interpreted to support the
female employee so as to give her further means to afford her needs, may it
be gynecological, physical, or psychological, for a holistic recuperation. The
recovery period may be a trying time that she needs much assistance and
compassion to regain her overall wellness. Nothing in RA No. 9710 and the
CSC Guidelines bar this more humane interpretation of the provision on
special leave benefit.
Anent Panga-Vega's return to work, while RA No. 9710 and the CSC
Guidelines do not require that the entire special leave applied for be
consumed, certain conditions must be satisfied for its propriety.
Under the CSC Guidelines, a total hysterectomy is classified as a major
surgical procedure 32 requiring a minimum period of recuperation of three
weeks to a maximum period of two months. 33 Aside from observing this
time frame, the employee, before she can return to work, shall present a
medical certificate signed by her attending surgeon that she is physically fit
to assume the duties of her position. 34
Panga-Vega underwent total hysterectomy on February 7, 2011, and
decided to return to work on March 7, 2011. As it appears, she was already
able to observe a period of recuperation of four weeks. As to the
requirement for a medical certificate, it is inconsequential to belabor the
seeming deficiency of the first medical certificate dated March 5, 2011,
which merely stated that there was no contraindication for her to resume
light to moderate activities, as she already presented a medical certificate
dated March 9, 2011 signed by her attending obstetrician/gynecologist
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 attesting her physical fitness to report back for work.
Based on these facts on record, the CSC found that Panga-Vega
sufficiently complied with the CSC Guidelines warranting her return to work.
The Court accords finality to these findings acknowledging the CSC's special
knowledge and expertise on matters falling under its jurisdiction as an
administrative agency, 35 and given the affirmance by the CA. 36
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
April 29, 2016 and Resolution dated November 8, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 128947 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Gesmundo, Lazaro-Javier and J.Y. Lopez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , 26-43.
2. Id. at 44-58; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Rodil V. Zalameda
(now a Member of this Court).

3. Id. at 59-60.
4. Id. at 308.

5. Id. at 116-119.
6. Id. at 133, 308.

7. Id. at 120.
8. Id. at 121-122.
9. Id. at 123.

10. Id. at 124.

11. Id. at 125-128.

12. Id. at 146-148.

13. Id. at 129-130.

14. Id. at 131-140.

15. Id. at 198-207. The CSC Decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Daisy B. Panga-Vega, is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Resolution dated March 10, 2011 of House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), Quezon City, directing her to
consume her approved two (2) months leave of absence, is SET ASIDE.
Panga-Vega should be paid back salaries and other benefits from March 7,
2011 to April 7, 2011.
Quezon City. Id. at 207.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 16. Id. at 208-213.

17. Id. at 214-219. The CSC Resolution disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty.
Girlie I. Salarda, Secretary, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET), Quezon City, is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Decision No. 12-0676 dated October 9, 2012 granting the
appeal of Daisy B. Panga-Vega and setting aside the Resolution dated March
10, 2011 of HRET as well as directing the payment of her back salaries and
other benefits from March 7, 2011 to April 7, 2011, STANDS.

Quezon City. Id. at 219.

18. Id. at 220-248.
19. Id. at 44-58. The CA Decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant Petition for
Review is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. Id. at 57.
20. Id. at 59-60. The CA Resolution disposed as follows:

Accordingly, for lack of persuasive force, We hereby DENY petitioner's

Motion for Reconsideration from the Decision of April 29, 2016.
SO ORDERED. Id. at 60.

21. Id. at 26-43.

22. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2010).
23. Id. at 837-846.
24. Garcia v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 371 Phil. 280, 287-288
(1999); see also Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 347
Phil. 797 (1997); and Rep. Robles vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, 260 Phil. 831 (1990).
25. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292 (1987), Sec. 35.
26. Republic v. Heirs of Cecilio and Moises Cuizon, 705 Phil. 596, 608-609 (2013);
Executive Order No. 292, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Sec. 35 (8), provides:
SEC. 35. Power and Functions. — x x x
(8) Deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies
and officers to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the
Government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the
Courts, and exercise supervision and control over such legal Officers with
respect to such cases.
27. CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WOMEN, Art. 3.
28. 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 14.
29. RA No. 9710 (2009), Sec. 2.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 30. See Aniñon v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 190410, April
10, 2019.
31. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41 (1998), Rule I (9).

32. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2010), List of Surgical Operations for
Gynecological Disorders, p. 4.
33. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2010), Sec. 2.2.1.

34. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2010), Sec. 3.5.

35. Japson v. Civil Service Commission , 663 Phil. 665, 675 (2011).
36. Encinas v. PO1 Agustin, Jr., 709 Phil. 236, 261 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com