GR 124678; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997
DELIA BANGALISAN, LUCILIN CABALFIN, EMILIA DE GUZMAN, CORAZON GOMEZ, CORAZON GREGORIO, LOURDES LAREDO, RODOLFO MARIANO, WILFREDO MERCADO, LIGAYA MONTANCES and CORAZON PAGPAGUITAN, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, except Rodolfo Mariano, were among 800 public school teachers who staged “mass actions” from September 17 to 19, 1990 to protest grievances regarding the implementation of laws for their material benefit. The DECS Secretary issued a Return-to-Work Order on September 17, 1990, which petitioners failed to obey. They were consequently charged with various administrative offenses and preventively suspended. After failing to submit an answer, the DECS Secretary found them guilty and dismissed them. Upon motions for reconsideration, the penalty was modified to a nine-month suspension without pay for some petitioners. Their appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board and subsequently to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were dismissed or resulted in findings of guilt for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with penalties modified to six months suspension without pay (with automatic reinstatement but no back wages) for most, and a reprimand for Mariano. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC resolutions.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioners were penalized for exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
2. Whether petitioner Mariano was illegally penalized.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled to back wages for the period of their suspension.
RULING
1. No. The Supreme Court ruled that the mass actions constituted a strike—a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons—which is prohibited for public employees. The right to strike is not included in the constitutional right of government employees to organize. Petitioners were penalized not for the exercise of their right to assemble, but for the manner of its exercise, which resulted in the disruption of public service (classes) and constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Even valid grievances do not justify an illegal work stoppage.
2. The ruling modified the penalty for Mariano. The CSC had found him guilty only of violating reasonable office rules for failing to inform the school of his absence and file a leave application, imposing a reprimand. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding but modified the award of back wages.
3. No, except for Mariano. The preventive suspension and immediate execution of the decision were legal under Section 51 of Executive Order No. 292. For the period of preventive suspension pending appeal, no back wages are due if the employee is found guilty. For the period of suspension after a guilty finding, back wages are not awarded as the suspension is a penalty, not an illegal dismissal. However, for petitioner Mariano, the Court modified the decision, granting him back wages without deduction from the time of his suspension until actual reinstatement (not exceeding five years), as his penalty was only a reprimand. The Court of Appeals decision was affirmed with this modification.