APOLINARIO ESBER, JULIETA BABARAN, MA. THERESA RIZARDO, GRACIANO BUDOY, JR., LUZ DEL CASTILLO, AND RITA ATABELO PETITIONERS, VS. CHAIRMAN PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, COMMISSIONER SA…

Challenged in this petition^[1]
for certiorari anchored on grave abuse of discretion, filed pursuant to
the provisions of Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, are the
respondent^[2]
Civil Service Commission’s (“Commission”): (a) Resolution^[3]
No. 92-230, dated 06 February 1992, which affirmed, with modification, the
decision^[4]
of the Merit Systems Protection Board; (b) Order, dated 10 March 1992, which
denied herein petitioners’ Notice of Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for
Hearing; and (c) Resolution No. 92-1123, dated 20 August 1992, which denied the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The relevant facts of the case, together with those involved in
related cases earlier resolved by this Court,^[5]
may be stated, as follows:

On the 17th of September 1990, which fell on a Monday, a regular
school day, some 800 public school teachers in Metro Manila, led by the Manila
Public School Teachers Association (“MPSTA”), held mass actions which
consisted, among other things, of mass absences, assemblies at the Liwasang
Bonifacio (Intramuros, Manila), and a rally at the Senate building where the
teachers aired what they had perceived to be legitimate grievances or
demands. At about 1:00 o’clock p.m.,
three representatives of the group were allowed to see Secretary Cariño but the
latter “***brushed aside their grievances (and) warned them that they
would lose their jobs for going on illegal and unauthorized mass leave.”
Upon leaving Cariño’s presence, they were handed an order directing all
participants in the mass action to return to work in 24 hours or face
dismissal, and a memorandum directing the DECS officials concerned to initiate
dismissal proceedings against those who would not comply and to hire their
replacements.^[6]
Those directives notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the week,
with more teachers joining in the days that followed.^[7]
Concerned about the ongoing events, herein petitioners, led by Apolinario Esber
in his capacity as President of the Ramon Magsaysay High School Faculty Club,
requested from, and were granted by, their Principal, Mrs. Esperanza Bautista,
permission to hold two meetings in the school premises, i.e., a Faculty
Executive Board Meeting on 17 September 1990 and a General Faculty Meeting on
18 September 1990.^[8]
Said meetings had for their agenda what were termed to be “MPSTA
updates”.^[9]

It was on the 19th of September 1990, also a regular school day,
when some teachers of the Ramon Magsaysay High School assembled outside said
school and held their own mass action.^[10]
Among those who took part in this assembly were the six (6) petitioners herein.^[11]
On the same day, petitioner Esber was replaced by a temporary teacher pursuant
to a Memorandum of even date to the Principal of the Magsaysay High School from
Erlinda Lolarga, Superintendent of City Schools (p.5, rollo). Forthwith and thereafter, Esber was no longer
allowed to continue teaching. The petitioners
then wrote a letter, dated 25 September 1990, addressed to respondent
Commission stating, inter alia,

“xxx We only begun peaceful assembly in front of our school
last 19 September 1990 at 8:00 a.m. to petition the government for redress of
grievances x x x and we express our intention to return to work in our school
that day but at 11:00 a.m. also of 19 September 1990 we already received a news
that some of our teachers had already a replacement. In view of this we tried to return to work
on September 20 and 21, 1990 but we were discouraged by the news from our
co-teachers that we also have replacement so we have no alternative
but to continue our protest action.”
(underscoring supplied)^[12]

On 25 September 1990, the Secretary of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (“DECS”) issued formal charges and preventive
suspension orders against herein petitioners.^[13]
They were charged with having joined or participated in an illegal
strike/unauthorized mass action despite a warning, dated 17 September 1990, to
all “public school teachers and other DECS personnel that under Civil
Service Law and Rules, strikes, unauthorized mass leaves and other forms of
mass actions by civil servants which disrupt public services are strictly
prohibited x x x.^[14]
The above charges were answered by the petitioners on different dates, to wit: 02 October 1990 by Esber, 03 October 1990 by
Babaran, 05 October 1990 by Castillo and Budoy, and 08 October 1990 by Rizardo
and Atabelo.^[15]
In their answers, the petitioners admitted that they merely staged a peaceful
assembly in front of Magsaysay High School beginning 19 September 1990.^[16]
The petitioners also requested for a formal investigation.^[17]

With the filing of the administrative complaints and the receipt
of the answers of some of the teachers involved, respondent Secretary Cariño
issued on 08 October 1990 a memorandum, forming an Investigation Committee
composed of Atty. Reno Capinpin of DECS Administrative Services, as Chairman,
Dr. Alberto Mendoza, representing the Division Supervisors, Atty. Evangeline de
Castro, representing the City Superintendent of Schools of Manila, and Atty.
Isaias Melegrito, representing the National PPSTA Organization, as members.^[18]
The Committee was authorized to meet everyday even as Special Prosecutors from
the Department of Justice on detail with the DECS were designated to handle the
prosecution during the formal hearings.^[19]

In the meantime, the MPSTA filed a petition for certiorari
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against Secretary Cariño, which was
dismissed. Later, the MPSTA went to
this Court on certiorari for alleged violation of the striking teachers’
right to due process and peaceable assembly.^[20]
The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) also filed a similar petition^[21]. Both petitions were filed in behalf of the
two associations, a few named individuals, and “other teacher-members so
numerous similarly situated” or “other similarly situated public school
teachers too numerous to be impleaded.”^[22]

Both cases were ordered consolidated, and the parties were heard
in oral argument on the petitioners’ common pleas for a temporary restraining
order/mandatory injunction to restore the status quo ante and
enjoin the public respondents from continuing with the issuance of suspension
orders and from proceeding with the administrative cases against the teachers
involved in the mass actions.^[23]

In the meantime, the petitioners submitted sworn statements,
dated 27 September 1990, to the Commission on Human Rights (“CHR”) to
complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions they
suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers, allegedly without notice and
for reasons completely unknown to them. Their complaints and those of other teachers were docketed as
“Striking Teachers” CHR Case No. 90-775.^[24]

Going back to the administrative case docketed as Case No. DECS
90-082, in which the petitioners were among the named respondents, their
counsel^[25]
moved for the suspension of the administrative proceedings pending resolution
by the Supreme Court of their application for the issuance of an injunctive
writ/temporary restraining order. But
when their motion for suspension was denied by Order, dated 08 November 1990, of
the Investigating Committee, which later also denied their motion for
reconsideration orally made at the hearing of 14 November 1990, the
petitioners, led by their counsel, staged a walkout in an apparent attempt to
boycott the proceedings.^[26]
Investigation thus proceeded ex-parte, and counsel for the complainant
(the DECS Secretary) presented Mrs. Esperanza Bautista, the Principal of Ramon
Magsaysay High School, as sole witness. She reiterated and affirmed her report on the whereabouts of herein
petitioners during the 17th to the 21st of September 1990.

After evaluating the evidence, as well as the answers, affidavits
and other documents submitted by the petitioners, Secretary Cariño rendered on
17 December 1990 his decision, decreeing the dismissal from the service of
Apolinario Esber and the suspension for nine (9) months of Babaran, Rizardo,
Budoy, Jr., del Castillo and Atabelo.^[27]

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, in its resolution, dated 18
December 1990, denied the MPSTA and ACT’s pIea for restoration of the status quo
ante and to restrain/enjoin further suspension of, and the initiation or
continuation of administrative proceedings against, the teachers, upon the
following postulates:

x x x

3) that from the pleaded and admitted facts,
these “mass actions” were to all intents and purposes a strike; they
constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work
which was the teachers duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic
reasons;

4) that this Court had already definitively
ruled that employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private
sector, do not have the right to strike x x x;

5) that upon the foregoing premises, it was prima
facie lawful and within his statutory authority for the respondent
Secretary of Education to take the actions complained of, to wit; issue a
return-to-work order, prepare administrative charges against, and place under preventive suspension, those who failed to
comply with said order, and dismiss from the service those who failed to answer
or controvert the charges.^[28]

Withal, on 07 January 1991, the
petitioners filed a letter-appeal to the respondent, Civil Service Commission,
seeking the reversal of the DECS decision, the reinstatement to their
respective positions, and the payment of all their back salaries and other
benefits (Annex “M”, Petition, pp. 78-79, rollo). The Merit Systems Protection Board
(“MSPB”), acting on the letter-appeal of herein petitioners,
promulgated its decision (MSPB No. 91-1094), dated 20 July 1991, finding the
latter guilty of gross violation of Civil Service laws and rules but modified
the original penalties; viz:

1.     
Apolinario Esber – six (6) months of suspension

2.     
Julieta Babaran – six (6) months of suspension

3.     
Ma. Theresa Rizardo – one (1) month, one (1) day, of
suspension

4.     
Graciano Budoy – two (2) months of suspension

5.     
Luz del Castillo – two (2) months of suspension

6.      Rita Atabelo – three (3) months of suspension

with stern warning given to the officials
of Ramon Magsaysay High School to be more circumspect in their sworn duties and
in the implementation of orders of competent authorities so as to obviate
against any aggravation of the situation.^[29]

Secretary Cariño, on 06 August 1991, moved for a reconsideration
of MSPB’s decision.^[30]
Having been denied, an appeal was interposed on 10 September 1991 with the
respondent Commission. The counsel for
herein petitioners was requested to comment on the said appeal. On 30 November 1991, the respondent Commission
received the comment of counsel for the petitioners who requested that the case
be set for hearing.^[31]
The Commission took no action on the motion for a hearing; instead, it opted to
decide the appeal by promulgating its disputed Resolution No. 92-230, dated 06
February 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Commission
resolves to deny the instant appeal. Accordingly, the decisions of the MSPB dated August 30, 1990 and July 20, 1991, are hereby modified and
respondent Apolinario Esber is found guilty of grave misconduct for which he is
meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service while the other five (5)
respondents herein are found guilty of Gross Violations of Civil Service Law
and Rules of serious nature for which they are meted the penalty, thus:

(1)  
Julieta Babaran – 6 months suspension

(2)   Graciano
Budoy, Jr. – 6 months suspension

(3)   Rita
Atabelo – 3 months suspension

(4)  
Luz del Castillo – 2 months suspension

(5)  
Ma. Teresa Rizardo – 1 month and 1 day suspension”^[32]

The Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the decision,
and they again requested for a hearing which was denied by the Commission in
its order of 10 March 1992.^[33]
The respondent Commission also denied, in its other assailed Resolution No.
921123, dated 20 August 1992, the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.^[34]

Hence, this recourse.

The Petitioners have assigned several errors, but reduced to
their essence, the simple questions in this appeal are: (a) were the petitioners accorded due
process; and (b) did the respondent Commission act with grave abuse of
discretion in affirming, with some modifications, the DECS decision.

The petition lacks merit even as the Solicitor General,
commenting on the petition, has expressed a contrary view.^[35]
The respondent Commission has thus appeared through its own office counsel.

We must stress at the outset that herein petitioners do not
appear to have had any direct participation in the mass actions led by the
MPSTA on the 17th and 18th of September 1990. But these mass actions did lead to the issuance of the directive of
Secretary Cariño ordering all teachers concerned to return to work on pains of
severe disciplinary action and reminding them that –

“Under Civil Service Law and Rules, strikes, unauthorized mass
leaves and other forms of mass actions by civil service servants which disrupt
public services are strictly prohibited.”^[36]

The said order was posted (as noted by
the MSPB) on a bulletin board placed near the entrance of the Magsaysay High
School on 17 September 1990. The above
warning notwithstanding, herein petitioners showed defiance by engaging in
their so-called “peaceful assembly” on 19 September 1990, petitioning
the government for redress of grievances.

The formation of the Investigating Committee by then Secretary
Cariño to conduct investigations on the cases of herein petitioners and other
teachers similarly situated, as well as to submit their report and
recommendation, accords with Republic Act No. 4670, otherwise known as the
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. We fail to see any irregularity in the appointment of Atty. Reno
Capinpin, DECS Director of Administrative Services, as the head of the
Committee, in lieu of Erlinda Lolarga, the Superintendent of City Schools, the
latter having been responsible for sending the memorandum to the principal of
Magsaysay High School replacing petitioner Esber by a temporary teacher. The Division Supervisors and the City
Superintendent of Schools in Manila were also represented, respectively, by Dr.
Alberto Mendoza and Atty. Evangeline Castro. The teachers’ organization, on the other hand, was duly represented by
Atty. Isaias Melegrito of the National PPSTA Organization. The fact that, instead of three (3) members,
four (4) were appointed to compose the Committee can be explained in that it
had to have a Division Supervisor in its ranks. It may also be well to consider that the committee was given the
monumental task of investigating hundreds, if not thousands, of public school
teachers.

Given all the factual settings, we are not convinced that there
was any substantial denial of administrative due process. What can be considered really obnoxious is
when there clearly is a lack of opportunity to be heard.^[37]
Here, the petitioners can hardly be said to have been deprived of that
opportunity. At one point, they even
boycotted the proceedings. They were
informed of the charges, allowed to and did, in fact, make known their
respective positions. One may be heard,
not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more
creditably and practicable, through pleadings than by oral argument.^[38]
In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of procedure are not
strictly enforced and due process of law, understood in its strict judicial
sense, is not similarly followed.^[39]
From the adverse decision of the DECS Secretary, the petitioners submitted
their letter-appeal^[40]
to, and considered by, the respondent Commission, thus negating, at least
curative of, any supposed denial of administrative due process.^[41]
It was not at all entirely accurate on the part of the Solicitor-General to
state that the alleged “evidence on hand” duly considered by the MSPB
were only the reports of the Superintendent, District Supervisors and
Principals. It must be noted that the
petitioners themselves submitted their own answers to the charges, affidavits
and other documents to substantiate their defense.

While the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Committee
were short of circumspection and may have indeed left much to be desired, the
demands of due process, nonetheless, cannot be said under the circumstances to
have been inadequately met.^[42]

All told, We are not prepared to conclude that the respondent
Commission was guilty of grave abuse of discretion in its questioned orders.

We find, however, the penalty of dismissal decreed against
Apolinario Esber to be rather harsh. There is no dispute that employees in the civil service may not engage
in strikes, walkouts and temporary stoppages.^[43]
Verily, strenuous and not totally irrelevant circumstances can well call for
compassion. We take note of a portion
of the findings of the Merit System and Protection Board to the effect that
“xxx appellants (petitioners herein) were consistently rated Very
Satisfactory in their performance and this is the first time that they were
administratively charged. xxx.”^[44]
Having been out of the service for almost three (3) years now, i.e., since 19
September 1990, this Court considers the same to be more than enough penalty
for petitioner Esber himself.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the respondent Civil Service Commission, the assailed Resolutions are hereby
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION insofar as petitioner Apolinario Esber is concerned
who is hereby ordered to be reinstated to his position effective as of the
finality of this decision. Without
special pronouncements as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, and Puno,
JJ., concur.

Cruz, Feliciano, and
Padilla, JJ., see dissenting opinion.

^[1]
Counsel for petitioners: Atty. Froilan Bacungan.

^[2]
Respondent Commission, in this instance, is represented by Normita Villanueva,
Sonia Ednaco and Daisy Garcia-Tingzon.

^[3]
Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas,
Commissioners Samuel Barlongay & Ramon Ereñeta, Jr.

^[4]
MSPB Case No. 91-1094: Thelma Gaminde, Board Chairman, Jesse
Caberoy and Jose Soria, Board Members.

^[5]
Joint Resolution, G.R. No. 95445
(Manila Public School Teachers Association, et al. v. Hon. Perfecto
Laguio, Jr., etc., et al.) and G.R. No. 95590 (Alliance of Concerned Teachers,
et al. v. Hon. Isidro Cariño, etc., et al., 200 SCRA 323 /1991/; G.R.
No. 96681 (Hon. Isidro Cariño, etc., et al. v. Commission on Human
Rights, et al., 204 SCRA 483 /1991/.

^[6]
Joint Resolution, G.R. Nos. 95445 and
95590, supra.

^[7]
Ibid.

^[8]
Annexes “E” and “F”, Petition, pp. 70-71.

^[9]
Ibid.

^[10]
CSC’s Comment, p. 166, rollo.

^[11]
Comment of the Solicitor-General, rollo,
p. 139.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 7.

^[13]
Rollo, p. 51.

^[14]
Rollo, p. 65; p. 211.

^[15]
Ibid., p. 8.

^[16]
Ibid., p. 81.

^[17]
Ibid., p. 8 and 139.

^[18]
Joint Res. G.R. No. 95445 & 95590; Rollo, p. 26; see also Section 9,
R.A. 4670.

^[19]
Rollo, p. 26.

^[20]
MPSTA, et al. v. Hon Laguio, et
al., G.R. 95445.

^[21]
ACT, et al. v. Hon. Cariño, et
al., G.R. 95590.

^[22]
G.R. No. 96681, supra.

^[23]
Joint Resolutions dated August 6, 1991,
supra.

^[24]
This Court, speaking through C. J. Narvasa, in its decision of 02 December 1991
(G.R. No. 96681, supra.) restrained the CHR from further hearing
resolving the case (i.e., Striking Teachers CHR Case No. 90-775) on the merits.

^[25]
Atty. Manuel Diokno.

^[26]
G.R. No. 96681, supra.

^[27]
Annex “D”, pp. 68-69, rollo.

^[28]
Joint Resolution dated August 6, 1991, supra.

^[29]
Annex “N”, p. 88, rollo
9

^[30]
On the same date, the joint Resolution of
this Court in G.R. Nos. 95445 and 95590 (MPSTA, et al. v. Laguio, et al.
and ACT v. Cariño, et al.), supra, penned by C.J. Narvasa was
promulgated dismissing the petitions “without prejudice to any appeals, if
still timely, that the individual petitioners may take to the CSC on the
matters complained of.

^[31]
CSC’s Comment, p. 172, rollo.

^[32]
Annex “A”, p. 57, rollo.

^[33]
Annex “B”, p. 59, rollo.

^[34]
Annex “C”, p. 64, rollo.

^[35]
Comment of the Solicitor General, pp.
138-154, rollo.

^[36]
Rollo, p. 211.

^[37]
Crespo v. Provincial Board of
Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-­33237, 160 SCRA 66 /1988/.

^[38]
Mutuc v. CA. G.R. No. 48108, 190
SCRA 43/1990/).

^[39]
Manuel v. Villena, G.R. No.
L-28218, 37 SCRA 745/1971/.

^[40]
Annex “M”, pp. 78-79, rollo.

^[41]
Sampang v. Inciong, G.R. No.
50992, 137 SCRA 56/1985/; see also Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal
Affairs v. CA, G.R. No. 76761, 169 SCRA 27/1989/; Cebu Stevedoring v.
Regional Director, G.R. No. 542285, 168 SCRA 315/1988/; Sta. Rita and Co. v.
Arroyo, G.R. No. 80452, 168 SCRA 581/1988/).

^[42]
Lindo v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
95016, 194 SCRA 25/1991/.

^[43]
Social Security Systems Employees
Association v. CA, G.R. No. 83279, 175 SCRA 686/1989/.

^[44]
Rollo, p. 87.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

6 pt
6 pt
0
3