G.R. No. 254757 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Complaint dated June 30, 2017, filed through counsel by Edmundo L. Yasay, and seventy-eight (78) other employees against the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), Sugar Center Building, North Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City for illegal dismissal, reinstatement and payment of back salaries and benefits is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Appellants may avail of the proper remedy with the proper forum for the assertion of their claims. Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the parties and COA-SRA for their reference and appropriate action." (Emphases in the original.) The CSC ruled that petitioners were not illegally dismissed since by their own admission and based on the records, they voluntarily signified their intention and availed of the retirement/separation package under the SRA's RATPLAN. Since the RATPLAN was formulated pursuant to EO No. 203, series of 2016 and RA 10149, and petitioners' separation/retirement from the SRA was made pursuant thereto, their separation from the service cannot be considered illegal under the Constitution. Consequently, the non­ payment/non-receipt of the retirement/separation pay and other benefits will not render illegal the otherwise legal cause of their separation. [24] In view thereof, the CSC additionally ruled that petitioners' prayer for reinstatement and payment of back salaries and benefits are improper as the same are warranted only when the government employee was exonerated of the administrative charges. [25] This notwithstanding, the CSC held that petitioners "are not left without recourse" as " [t]hey may file their claims with the proper authority. " [26] Meanwhile, it directed the SRA " to facilitate the payment and release of [their] ERIP benefits with great dispatch ." [27] The CSC's July 3, 2019 Decision became final and executory per the Certificate of Finality [28] dated August 6, 2019. Developments after the finality of the CSC Decision In view of the finality of the CSC Decision, petitioners sent a Letter [29] dated August 16, 2019, which the SRA received on August 20, 2019, informing the latter of the CSC Decision and praying for the release of their ERIP benefits pursuant to the CSC's directive. Petitioners sent another Letter [30] dated September 6, 2019 following up on and reiterating their earlier request for the release of said benefits as directed by the CSC. As both Letters were not acted upon by the SRA nor were their request for the release of their retirement/separation benefits granted, some of herein petitioners [31] filed a Complaint, [32] dated September 27, 2019, before the Office of the Ombudsman for non-compliance with the CSC's Decision and for violation of RA 10154 [33] and Section 5(a) of RA 6713. [34] The case is still pending before the Ombudsman. [35] On the other hand, on November 20, 2019, 36 of herein petitioners [36] sent a Letter [37] to the GCG requesting that the implementation of the ERIP be excluded from the coverage of MC No. 2017-03