BIR Ruling

September 7, 1976 The Revenue District Officer Revenue District No. 16 Olongapo City S i r : In reply to your letter dated May 18, 1976 requesting information whether an employee who is under preventive suspension for a period of 90 days is automatically reinstated after the lapse of the said period, quoted hereunder are Sections 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 807 otherwise known as the "Civil Service Decree of the Philippines". "Sec. 41. Preventive Suspension . The proper disciplining authority may preventively suspend any subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from service." "Sec. 42. Lifting of Preventive Suspension Pending Administrative Investigation . When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service: Provided ,That when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided." It is clear from the abovequoted provisions that when the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided within ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service. However, if there was delay in the disposition of the case, and the delay is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the employee, the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the 90-day period, as for examples: Where there was no delay caused by respondent : An employee was under preventive suspension on March 1, 1976. If the case against him is not been finally decided within ninety (90) days from said date or until May 30, 1976, he is automatically reinstated beginning May 31, 1976. Where there was delay caused by respondent : An employee was under preventive suspension on March 1, 1976. His case was scheduled for hearing on March 5, 1976; but upon his petition, the same was postponed to April 5, 1976. Said period of delay shall not be counted in computing the 90-day period. Therefore, in this case, from March 1 (date of suspension) to March 5 (date of delay started) four (4) days had already elapsed. The remaining period of eighty-six (86) days within the employee shall be under suspension resumes to run on April 6, 1976 and ends on June 30, 1976, if the case is not yet finally decided. In such case, the employee is automatically reinstated beginning July 1, 1976. Very truly yours, EFREN I. PLANA Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue TAN-1456-040-3