Case Digest (G.R. No. 132088) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Everdina Acosta et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132088, decided on June 28, 2000 under the 1987 Constitution, numerous public school teachers in Metro Manila—among them Everdina Acosta, Noemi Acosta, Elvira Amparado and hundreds of co‐petitioners—joined mass actions at Liwasang Bonifacio between September and October 1990. Refusing Secretary Isidro D. Cariño’s September 17, 1990 return‐to‐work order, they were marked absent without official leave. Their school principals filed motu propri o administrative complaints charging them with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, insubordination and conduct prejudicial to the service. After failing to answer within the prescribed period, Secretary Cariño dismissed them from service. On appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board and thereafter the Civil Service Commission (CSC) found them guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, reduced the penalty to six months’ suspension without pay, and order Case Digest (G.R. No. 132088) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners are over one hundred public school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila.
- Respondents are the Court of Appeals (CA), the Civil Service Commission (CSC), and the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
- Events Leading to Administrative Charges
- In September–October 1990, petitioners joined mass actions at Liwasang Bonifacio and failed to report for work despite a return-to-work order dated September 17, 1990.
- School principals reported petitioners’ participation and refusal to comply. DECS Investigating Committees charged them with grave misconduct, neglect of duty, insubordination, conduct prejudicial to service, and absence without leave.
- Administrative Proceedings and Appeals
- Petitioners did not file answers to the charges. Secretary Isidro D. Cariño dismissed them for grave misconduct (October 1990).
- Petitioners appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and then to the CSC. In 1995, the CSC modified the penalty to six months’ suspension without pay and ordered reinstatement.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 39878); the CA affirmed the CSC resolutions (Decision August 29, 1997; Resolution January 7, 1998).
- Present Petition
- Petitioners seek to set aside the CA’s affirmance, asserting (a) they merely exercised their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and petition for redress of grievances, and (b) they are entitled to backwages for the suspension period.
Issues:
- Whether petitioners’ participation in the mass actions was a protected exercise of their constitutional rights to assemble and petition the government.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to backwages covering the period of their suspension and dismissal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)