GR 124540; (November, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124540 November 14, 1997
MERLINDA JACINTO, ADELINA AGUSTIN, SUSAN AGUSTIN, EVELYN ATIENZA, NIDA BALANE, ANICIA CARLOS, CELEDONIA CARLOS, LIWANAG CASTILLO, JOSEFINA DE GUZMAN, MINERVA GARCIA, MARIA GATDULA, ALICIA GUNDA, AURORA LOPEZ, CARMENCITA MANANSALA, ERLINDA MARTINEZ, LOLITA NAVARRETE, GUADALUPE PANERGO, MARIA PULGA, PAZ SERRA and VIRGINIA ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS; THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; and THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila. Between September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in connection with mass actions staged to pressure the government to grant their demands. On September 17, 1990, DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño issued a return-to-work order, which the petitioners ignored. Consequently, Secretary Cariño issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against them, administratively charging them with gross misconduct, gross neglect of duty, unjustified abandonment of teaching posts, and incurring unauthorized absences, among others. An investigation committee was created, but petitioners did not file answers to controvert the charges. Secretary Cariño found them guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal, except for petitioners Merlinda Jacinto and Adelina Agustin who were meted six months suspension. The decisions were appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed the appeals, and then to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, in separate resolutions, set aside the MSPB orders, finding the petitioners (except Merlinda Jacinto) guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing a six-month suspension without pay with automatic reinstatement without back salaries. Merlinda Jacinto was found guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and given a reprimand with automatic reinstatement without back salaries. The Court of Appeals upheld the CSC resolutions, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the CSC resolutions that penalized petitioners for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the CSC resolution that penalized petitioner Merlinda Jacinto for an alleged offense without basis, violating her right to security of tenure.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the CSC resolutions that denied petitioners backwages for the period they were preventively suspended.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that while the Constitution grants public employees the right to organize, assemble peaceably, and petition for redress of grievances, there is no express provision granting them the right to strike. The mass actions staged by the petitioners, which involved unauthorized absences and work stoppages, constituted a strike, which is prohibited for civil service employees. The Court cited MPSTA vs. Laguio, which held that such mass actions were “to all intents and purposes a strike.” The exercise of constitutional rights is not absolute and must be done in accordance with law, including civil service rules prohibiting strikes.
2. On the second issue, the Court found no reversible error in the CSC’s finding that Merlinda Jacinto violated reasonable office rules and regulations. The CSC’s factual findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive. The penalty of reprimand was deemed appropriate and did not violate her security of tenure.
3. On the third issue, the Court ruled that petitioners are not entitled to backwages for the period of their preventive suspension. Under civil service rules, if an employee is found guilty and the penalty imposed is suspension, the period of preventive suspension is credited as part of the penalty. Since the petitioners were found guilty and given suspensions, they were not entitled to back salaries for the preventive suspension period. The Court cited Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, which held that a preventive suspension is not a penalty but a precautionary measure, and no back wages are due if the employee is not exonerated.