THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS; ABENIS, ERLINDA; ACHACON, JULIAN; ACOL, SOCORRO; AFAN, MA. A…

Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a consolidated petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, brought by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports and the Civil Service Commission against the Court of Appeals, joined by public school teachers from various schools in the National Capital Region. The teachers had joined the mass actions of September 1990, were dismissed by the Secretary, had their dismissal commuted by the Civil Service Commission to six months of suspension without pay, and were then awarded back salaries by the Court of Appeals. The case matters because it fixes two rules every civil servant must know: that a mass action by public school teachers on school days is a strike in every sense of the term, and that back wages may be decreed only when the employee is found innocent of the charges or the suspension is unjustified.

Procedural History

The teachers incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the mass action of September 1990. The Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports issued a return to work order, and when it was ignored, administrative complaints were lodged against the teachers for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of the Civil Service law and rules and reasonable office regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the public interest, and absence without leave. Investigation committees were created, and the Secretary rendered separate judgments finding the teachers guilty and dismissing them from the service effective immediately. The Merit and System Protection Board affirmed the dismissals. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission found the teachers guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service but imposed only six months of suspension without pay, and in the case of Erlinda Abenis ordered her automatically reinstated without payment of back salaries.

Dissatisfied, the teachers brought a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission finding them guilty and suspending them for six months, but modified the ruling so that the teachers would be entitled to back salaries for the period they were not allowed to teach, except for the six months during which they were suspended for cause. From that decision, the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Civil Service Commission, and the teachers filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court, which were consolidated. The teachers argued that they were merely exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, while the Secretary argued that the award of back salaries had no legal or factual basis.

Facts

In September 1990, public school teachers from various schools in the National Capital Region staged mass actions. They incurred unauthorized absences in connection with, and in furtherance of, those mass actions. Confronted with a strike that threatened to disrupt classes in public schools, the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports issued a memorandum ordering the teachers to return to work within twenty four hours from their walkout, under pain of dismissal proceedings.

The teachers ignored the memorandum. The Secretary then lodged administrative complaints against them. The teachers were given five days from receipt of the formal charge to answer, were given the option to elect a formal investigation, and were informed of their right to the assistance of a lawyer of their choice. Despite the time, the option, and the right afforded them, they failed to answer the charges. Investigation committees were then created to investigate and hear their cases, and the school principals concerned were called to shed light on the inquiry.

The Secretary rendered separate judgments finding the teachers guilty as charged and dismissing them from the service effective immediately. The Merit and System Protection Board affirmed. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed six months of suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the ruling to award back salaries for the period they were not allowed to teach, except for the six months of suspension for cause. Hence the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the mass actions staged by the public school teachers in September 1990 were a legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, rather than a strike.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the payment of back salaries in favor of the teachers despite finding them guilty of the administrative charges against them.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional guarantee of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, which the teachers invoked:

The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is guaranteed by the Constitution.

It bears on the case because the Court held that this liberty, like any other liberty, must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare, and that the teachers did not observe those limits.

The decision also rests on the rule governing back salaries of a civil servant who is suspended and later reinstated, as stated in the Bangalisan ruling:

The payment of back wages may be decreed if he is found innocent of the charges which caused the suspension and when the suspension is unjustified.

It bears on the case because the teachers were not exonerated, having been found guilty of a lesser offense, so the second condition for back wages was absent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the contention is barren of merit, the issue having been settled. The mass actions of September and October 1990 participated in by the public school teachers of Metro Manila constituted a strike in every sense of the term. The Court recalled its earlier ruling that these mass actions amounted to a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of or absence from work which it was the teachers' sworn duty to perform, carried out for essentially economic reasons. The Court rejected the claim that the teachers were thereby denied their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, reasoning that this constitutional liberty, to be upheld like any other liberty, must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare. The teachers did not exercise their right within reasonable limits. They committed acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service by staging mass protests on regular school days, abandoning their classes, and refusing to go back even after they had been ordered to do so. Had they used their free time, recess, the period after classes, weekends, or holidays to dramatize their grievances, no one could have held them liable. The Court therefore held that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission finding the teachers guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On the second issue, the Court held that the award of back salaries does not accord with prevailing jurisprudence. The teachers were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended. The immediate implementation of the dismissal orders was clearly sanctioned by law and was not unjustified. When the teachers gave cause for their suspension by the unjustified abandonment of classes to the prejudice of their students, they were not fully innocent of the charges against them, even though they were eventually found guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and not of grave misconduct or other offenses warranting dismissal. Being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration. The Court invoked the principle of stare decisis, meaning to stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled, and held that since the ground for their suspension was duly stated, the denial of their prayer for exoneration and payment of back wages was in order.

Doctrine

First, a mass action staged by public school teachers on regular school days, involving the abandonment of classes and refusal to return despite a return to work order, is a strike in every sense of the term. The constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare. Teachers who dramatize their grievances during free time, recess, after classes, on weekends, or on holidays commit no violation.

Second, back wages may be decreed in favor of a suspended civil servant who is subsequently reinstated only if he is found innocent of the charges which caused the suspension and the suspension is unjustified. A finding of liability for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration, and the immediate implementation of a dismissal order sanctioned by law is not an unjustified suspension.

Third, under the principle of stare decisis, when a court has laid down a principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.

Disposition

The petition of the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports was granted and the petition of the public school teachers was denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with the modification that the award of back salaries in favor of the teachers was deleted, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the twin rule: a mass action on school days is a strike in every sense of the term, and back wages follow only from innocence or unjustified suspension, never from a finding of a lesser offense. Examiners use this case to test the limits of the right to assemble in the civil service and the requisites for back salaries upon reinstatement.