Case Summary (G.R. No. 132088)
Administrative Proceedings and Initial Penalty
DECS investigating committees, after petitioners failed to file answers, found them guilty and ordered their immediate dismissal. Petitioners appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and then to the CSC.
Civil Service Commission’s Modification
In 1995 the CSC ruled that petitioners committed conduct prejudicial to the service and imposed six months’ suspension without pay, restoring them to their former positions upon completion of the penalty.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ certiorari petition and motion for reconsideration, upholding the CSC’s resolutions. Petitioners then sought review before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioners’ participation in mass actions constituted protected exercise of the constitutional right to assemble and petition.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to backwages for the period of suspension.
Right to Assemble vs. Unauthorized Absence
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its precedents (Manila Public School Teachers’ Association v. Laguio, Jr.; Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals) that the mass actions amounted to an unauthorized work stoppage—a de facto strike—undertaken for economic reasons. Public school teachers, as government employees, lack the statutory right to strike. Their unauthorized absences disrupted educational services, prejudicing innocent students and justifying administrative penalties.
Backwages Claim
Under existing jurisprudence, backwages may be awarded only if an employee is exonerated or if suspension is found unjustified. Here, petitioners were found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the service—liability for a lesser offense does not equate to exoneration. The initial dismissal orders were executory pending appeal (EO 292, Sec.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132088)
Background
- Petitioners are a large group of public school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila.
- They joined mass actions at Liwasang Bonifacio in September and October 1990 to petition the government for redress of grievances.
- On September 17, 1990, Secretary Isidro D. Cariño of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued a return-to-work order which petitioners ignored.
Facts of the Case
- School principals reported petitioners’ absences and participation in the mass actions to DECS.
- Petitioners were charged motu proprio by Secretary Cariño with:
• Grave misconduct
• Gross neglect of duty
• Gross violation of Civil Service law, rules and regulations
• Refusal to perform official duty
• Gross insubordination
• Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
• Absence without official leave (AWOL) - Petitioners failed to file any answer to these administrative charges within the prescribed period.
DECS Proceedings and Initial Sanctions
- DECS Investigating Committees conducted inquiries and recommended dismissal.
- On various dates in October 1990, Secretary Cariño ordered the immediate dismissal of each petitioner for the offenses charged.
- Notices of decision were sent to petitioners and relevant DECS offices.
Appeals to MSPB and CSC
- Petitioners appealed Secretary Cariño’s dismissal orders to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
- They further lodged their appeals with the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
- In 1995, the CSC modified the penalty:
• Found petitioners guilty of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service”
• Imposed six months suspension without pay
• Ordered automatic reinstatement to former positions, crediting time out of service