Title
Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124678
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1997
Public school teachers staged mass actions in 1990, deemed a strike by the Supreme Court, leading to suspensions and dismissals. The Court upheld penalties, denied back wages for most, but granted them to an exonerated teacher, emphasizing public employees' lack of strike rights.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124678)

Facts:

    Background of the Case

    • Petitioners, comprising Delia Bangalisan, Lucilin Cabalfin, Emilia De Guzman, Corazon Gomez, Corazon Gregorio, Lourdes Laredo, Rodolfo Mariano, Wilfredo Mercado, Ligaya Montances, and Corazon Pagpaguitan, were public school teachers among approximately 800 who staged mass actions from September 17 to 19, 1990.
    • The teachers allegedly intended to dramatize their grievances over the alleged failure of public authorities to implement laws and measures designed for their material benefit.

    Government Action and Charges

    • On September 17, 1990, the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued a Return-to-Work Order, which the petitioners failed to comply with.
    • As a result, the petitioners were charged with multiple offenses, including:
    • Grave misconduct
    • Gross neglect of duty
    • Gross violation of the Civil Service law, rules and regulations, and reasonable office regulations
    • Refusal to perform official duty
    • Gross insubordination
    • Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
    • Absence without official leave (AWOL) in violation of the Civil Service Decree (PD 807)
    • Concurrent with the charges, all petitioners were placed under preventive suspension, and they did not file answers to the complaint despite due notice.

    Administrative Proceedings

    • On October 30, 1990, the DECS Secretary rendered a decision finding the petitioners guilty, initially dismissing them from service effective immediately.
    • Petitions for reconsideration were filed:
    • For most petitioners (except Rodolfo Mariano), the penalty was later modified from dismissal to suspension (initially nine months without pay, with further modifications by the Civil Service Commission (CSC)).
    • Petitioner Rodolfo Mariano, who was found guilty solely of violating reasonable office rules and regulations (for failing to inform the school of his absence and file an application for leave), was given only a reprimand.
    • Appeals and further administrative motions:
    • Individual appeals were filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which were dismissed for lack of merit.
    • Appeals were also filed with the CSC.
    • Some appeals (e.g., those of petitioners Cabalfin, Montances, and Pagpaguitan) were dismissed on timeliness grounds but later addressed on the merits in the interest of justice.
    • The CSC, on reconsideration, affirmed penalties:
    • Imposing suspension (either for six months with automatic reinstatement without back wages or nine months suspension without pay) on petitioners found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service.
ii. Upholding a reprimand for petitioner Mariano.

    Nature of the Mass Action and Alleged Rights Violations

    • Petitioners contended that their participation in the mass action was an exercise of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    • They argued that their actions did not amount to a strike but rather a lawful demonstration of their demands.
    • The Government and subsequent decisions, however, characterized the mass action as constituting an unauthorized work stoppage or strike, resulting in the disruption of public services and classes, which adversely affected the students.
    • The controversy also included an issue on the payment of back wages during the period they were suspended, particularly noting a discrepancy for petitioner Mariano who was later exonerated from the most serious charges.

    Legal and Doctrinal Context

    • It is a settled rule in Philippine jurisprudence that public employees are prohibited from engaging in strikes, demonstrations, or other forms of mass action that disrupt public service.
    • The right of government employees to organize is strictly limited to unionization or association and explicitly does not extend to the right to strike.
    • The administrative actions, including preventive suspension and the immediate execution of the DECS decision, were based on established provisions of Executive Order No. 292 and the Civil Service Decree, which authorize such disciplinary measures in cases involving misconduct or unauthorized absences.

Issue:

  • Whether the mass action undertaken by the petitioners, despite being labeled as a means to petition the government, legally constituted a strike or unauthorized work stoppage.
  • Whether the imposition of disciplinary penalties (ranging from suspension, dismissal, to mere reprimand) for participating in the mass action violated the petitioners’ constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and petitioning the government.
  • Whether the preventive suspensions and the immediate execution of the DECS decision, as well as the denial of back wages, were consistent with due process and the applicable provisions of civil service laws and executive orders.
  • Whether petitioner Rodolfo Mariano, having been exonerated of the substantive charges regarding the mass action and punished only for a minor administrative lapse, is entitled to back wages during his suspension.
  • The broader issue of whether public employees, even if aggrieved by governmental policies, may exercise a right to protest that disrupts public service without incurring administrative penalties.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.

About Privacy Terms