Facts:

This case involves Eduardo Balitaosan (petitioner) against the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (respondent). The events center around Balitaosan's participation in a mass strike of public school teachers at Liwasang Bonifacio from September to October 1990. Following his involvement, then Secretary Isidro Cariño issued a return-to-work order which Balitaosan ignored. Consequently, an administrative complaint was filed against him along with others, charging grave misconduct, neglect of duty, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, and absence without leave. Despite receiving due notice, Balitaosan failed to provide an explanation for his actions. As a result, he was subjected to a 90-day preventive suspension and subsequently dismissed from service through a decision dated November 29, 1990.

Balitaosan appealed this decision to the Merit System Protection Board but his appeal was dismissed as being out of time. Discontented with this outcome, he

...

Facts:

Background and Dismissal

• Eduardo Balitaosan, a public school teacher, participated in a mass strike at Liwasang Bonifacio from September to October 1990.
• By ignoring the return-to-work order, he, along with other teachers, became subject to administrative complaint.
• The complaint charged him with multiple offenses including grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service.

Administrative Proceedings and Disciplinary Action

• The administrative complaint was filed against petitioner together with other respondents, notably Dalangin Sarmiento and Filomeno Rafer.
• Despite receiving due notice, petitioner failed to give his explanation on the charges.
• As a consequence, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for 90 days.
• A decision dated November 29, 1990, dismissed petitioner from service by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) under then Secretary Isidro CariAo.

Subsequent Appeals and Reinstatement Order

• Petitioner appealed the dismissal first to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but his appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time.
• He then elevated his case to the Civil Service Commission (CSC); however, both his appeal and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied in resolutions dated September 8, 1994, and April 14, 1998, respectively.
• Petitioner pursued a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which resulted in:
• An order for his reinstatement.
• Modification of the penalty: instead of the original dismissal, he was found only guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service and was meted a six-month suspension without pay.
• The order clarified that reinstatement was an act of liberality rather than an exoneration.

Claim for Backwages and Subsequent Petition for Review

• Despite the reinstatement order, petitioner sought backwages for the period of his suspension, arguing that he was unfairly denied pay.
• The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated April 15, 1999, denied his motion for partial reconsideration which prayed for the award of backwages.
• Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review, contending that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error by rejecting his claim and alleging a denial of due process based on the ruling in Fabella, et al. vs. Court of Appeals.

Reference to Prior Cases and Alleged Due Process Violation

• Petitioner relied on the ruling in Fabella to argue that the investigation committee’s composition and jurisdiction were flawed, as it had included a representative of a teacher’s organization.
• In Fabella, the voiding of proceedings due to lack of competent jurisdiction led to the award of backwages.
• However, in Balitaosan’s case, the issue of the investigation committee’s competence was not raised at the outset and was belatedly introduced only in the petition for review.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s claim for backwages following his reinstatement.

• Consideration of whether the award of backwages was appropriate given that petitioner had not rendered any service during his suspension.
• Determination if differentiating petitioner’s case from that of Fabella was warranted based on the timing and substance of the due process arguments raised.

Whether new issues raised for the first time on appeal, specifically the challenge to the investigating committee’s competence and composition, should be entertained.

• Assessment of the fairness in changing or expanding the legal theory on appeal.
• Evaluation of the rules regarding the timely raising of issues and the implications for due process and fair play.

• Whether the principle of “no work, no pay” should preclude the award of backwages to a public official reinstated after a long period of non-service.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)