Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports v. Abenis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Public school teachers from various schools in the National Capital Region incurred unauthorized absences in connection with a mass action in September 1990. The DECS Secretary issued a Return to Work Order, which was ignored by the teachers. Administrative complaints were filed against them for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of Civil Service law and rules, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the public interest, and absence without leave. Procedural History: The teachers failed to answer the charges despite being given the opportunity. Investigation committees were formed, and DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño found the teachers guilty and dismissed them. This was affirmed by the Merit and System Protection Board (MSPB). On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) found the teachers guilty of 'conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service' and imposed a penalty of six months' suspension without pay, with automatic reinstatement considering the time already out of service, but without back salaries. The Petition: The teachers filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CSC resolutions but modified them to grant back salaries for the period they were not allowed to teach, except for the six months of suspension. Both the DECS Secretary and the Civil Service Commission, as well as the teachers, filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the CA decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the mass actions of public school teachers in September 1990 constituted a strike. Whether the teachers were entitled to back salaries upon their reinstatement, considering their actions. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the payment of back salaries, given the teachers' culpability.
Ruling
The petition in G.R. No. 128559 is GRANTED, and the petition in G.R. No. 130911 is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39722 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of back salaries in favor of the subject public school teachers is hereby deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the mass actions constituted a strike: The Court held that the mass actions of September/October 1990 participated in by public school teachers constituted a strike in every sense of the term. This was based on prior rulings in Alipat v. Court of Appeals and De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, which characterized similar mass actions as a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work carried out for essentially economic reasons. The Court reiterated that while teachers have the right to peaceably assemble and petition, this liberty must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice public welfare. The mass protests on regular school days, abandonment of classes, and refusal to return to work even after being ordered to do so, went beyond reasonable limits and were prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On whether the teachers were entitled to back salaries: The Court ruled that back wages may be decreed only if the suspended employee is found innocent of the charges and the suspension is unjustified. In this case, the teachers were not completely exonerated, as they were adjudged guilty of committing acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court cited Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals and Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, which held that being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration. Since the teachers gave cause for their suspension by abandoning classes, they were not fully innocent of the charges against them, thus disentitling them to back salaries. On whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the payment of back salaries: The Court ruled that back wages may be decreed only if the suspended employee is found innocent of the charges and the suspension is unjustified. In this case, the teachers were not completely exonerated, as they were adjudged guilty of committing acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court cited Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals and Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, which held that being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration. Since the teachers gave cause for their suspension by abandoning classes, they were not fully innocent of the charges against them, thus disentitling them to back salaries.
Main Doctrine
Public school teachers who participate in mass actions constituting a strike, despite being found guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, are not entitled to back salaries upon reinstatement, as they were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended, having given cause for their suspension.