Case Digest (G.R. No. 110379)
Facts:
Hon. Armand Fabella, et al. v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 110379, November 28, 1997, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court (Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concurring).Petitioners are Hon. Armand Fabella (substituted respondent-appellant in place of former Secretary Isidro Carino), Dr. Nilo Rosas (DECS‑NCR Regional Director), Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano (Superintendent, Quezon City Schools and Division) and several DECS officials; private respondents are a group of public school teachers (including Rosarito A. Septimo et al.). The dispute arises from administrative charges, preventive suspensions and dismissals following a series of teacher mass actions between September 26 and October 18, 1990.
On September 17, 1990 then‑DECS Secretary Isidro Carino issued a return‑to‑work order. On October 18, 1990 he filed administrative charges against the Mandaluyong High School teachers for grave misconduct, neglect of duty, violation of Civil Service laws and related grounds, and ordered preventive suspension. The charges were amended November 7, 1990 to specify dates. Administrative hearings commenced December 20, 1990; petitioners' counsel objected to investigative procedures and the committee's refusal to furnish its guidelines and briefly walked out, later obtaining the guidelines.
The teachers filed Civil Case No. 60675 (injunctive relief) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, on April 10, 1991; a TRO was denied and the complaint was amended to one for certiorari and mandamus alleging grave abuse by the investigating committee (notably, that the committee shifted the burden of proof to the teachers). Adriano S. Valencia moved to intervene (granted June 3, 1991). The Solicitor General answered (June 11, 1991), invoked the doctrine of primary resort and sought reconsideration of the intervention order. Meanwhile the DECS investigating committee found the teachers guilty and ordered dismissal on August 6, 1991.
The RTC initially dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus (August 15, 1991) and denied reconsideration (September 11, 1991). The teachers petitioned the Supreme Court which, by resolution of February 18, 1992, voided the RTC's dismissal and reinstated the teachers' action and ordered their reinstatement pending resolution. The RTC then set hearings; a pre‑trial order required personal appearance of Secretary Carino on June 17 (later reset to June 26). Secretary Carino did not personally appear but was represented by DECS attorneys and the court declared the respondents in default and denied the Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration (order of July 15, 1992). The case proceeded to an ex parte hearing; on August 10, 1992 the RTC rendered judgment granting the teachers' petition, finding the investigating committee illegally constituted in violation of Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers), voiding the dismissals, ordering reinstatement with full back pay and benefits.
Former Secretary Carino appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that private respondents (the teachers) were denied due process of law in the administrative proceedings?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in strictly applying R.A. No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) in determining the composition of the investigating committee?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal (from the RTC) and in affirming the trial court's...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)