GR 128559; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128559 & 130911; October 4, 2000
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. (Consolidated Cases)
FACTS
The respondents, public school teachers from the National Capital Region, participated in a mass action or strike in September 1990. The then Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued a return-to-work order, which the teachers defied. Consequently, the DECS Secretary filed administrative charges against them for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and refusal to perform official duty. The teachers were preventively suspended.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC), on appeal, found the teachers guilty of the lesser offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed a six-month suspension. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s finding of guilt but modified the penalty. It ruled the teachers were entitled to back salaries for the period of their preventive suspension, deducting only the six-month suspension period served as penalty. The DECS Secretary and the CSC assailed this award of back salaries.
ISSUE
Whether public school teachers found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for participating in an illegal strike are entitled to payment of back salaries corresponding to their period of preventive suspension.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the award of back salaries. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine that a public official is not entitled to compensation for a period of suspension if they are not exonerated of the charges. Payment of back salaries follows as a matter of right only upon complete exoneration. Here, the teachers were not exonerated; they were adjudged guilty of a lesser administrative offense. Their eventual conviction for conduct prejudicial to the service validated the legality of their preventive suspension.
The Court applied the principle of stare decisis, citing its ruling in Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, which held that absent full exoneration, no back wages are due. Since the ground for the suspension—participation in the mass action—was substantiated, the denial of back salaries is proper. The preventive suspension was not baseless but was a direct consequence of their defiance of a lawful return-to-work order, which later resulted in a finding of guilt. Therefore, the Court of Appeals decision was modified by deleting the award of back salaries.