G.R. No. 126183 & G.R. No. 129221. March 25, 1999.
LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are public school teachers who participated in the mass actions in September/October 1990. Then DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño filed administrative complaints against them for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, alleging their participation in an illegal strike and defiance of a return-to-work order. Secretary Cariño dismissed them from service, with immediate execution. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified the penalty, finding them guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposing a six-month suspension. Given their prolonged dismissal, the CSC ordered their automatic reinstatement but without back wages.
Dissatisfied, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, arguing their actions were a legitimate exercise of the right to assembly. The appellate court dismissed their petitions, upholding the CSC’s findings. It ruled the mass actions were an illegal strike, not a protected assembly, and their defiance of the return-to-work order warranted administrative sanction. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s decision which found petitioners guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for participating in the 1990 mass actions.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court held that the mass actions undertaken by the petitioners, which involved a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work and defiance of a lawful return-to-work order, constituted a strike. Citing established jurisprudence, notably Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr., the Court reiterated that government employees, including public school teachers, do not possess the right to strike. Their participation in such an activity is a form of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as it disrupts public education and disregards the legal injunction against strikes in the public sector. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CSC’s imposition of a six-month suspension, which was a reasonable exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. The penalty was proportionate to the offense, considering the nature of their actions as public servants sworn to uphold the law and maintain continuity in essential public services.