Gesite v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Public school teachers in Metro Manila, including petitioners Leonora A. Gesite, Fe Lamoste, Adelaida Macalindog, and Guia C. Agaton, engaged in mass actions in September 1990 to demand payment of allowances, 13th month pay, and the recall of a DECS order regarding class sizes and teacher workloads. When their demands were not met, approximately 800 teachers, including the petitioners, did not conduct classes on specific dates in September 1990. The DECS Secretary warned them of dismissal and ordered them to return to work within twenty-four hours, initiating administrative proceedings against those who did not comply. Procedural History: The petitioners failed to file an answer to the administrative complaints filed against them by the DECS Secretary, leading to their dismissal from service. This penalty was later reduced to suspensions of varying lengths. The petitioners appealed to the Merit System Protection Board, which denied their appeal. Subsequently, their appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was also denied; the CSC found them liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed a six-month suspension. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petitions and upheld the CSC's resolutions. The Petition: The petitioners seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in sustaining the CSC's finding of liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, asserting they were merely exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. They also contend that the Court of Appeals erred in denying their plea for backwages during their suspension. The petition raises the sole issue of whether their participation in the mass actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Civil Service Commission's decision finding petitioners liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service when they allegedly only exercised their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners' plea for the payment of their backwages covering the period they were not allowed to teach.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 22, 1995, and its Resolution dated January 22, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 37690 and 37705-07 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court held that the mass actions taken by the public school teachers, including the petitioners, from September to the first half of October 1990, were, in effect, a strike. This was based on the ruling in Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, which defined such actions as a "concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers' duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons." The Court emphasized that the substance of the situation, not the conventional term used, is controlling. Furthermore, the petitioners were not charged for engaging in a strike per se, but for their unauthorized absences from classes from September 19-21, 1990, in direct violation of DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño's return-to-work order. These unauthorized absences disrupted classes and prejudiced the welfare of the school children. The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and other forms of mass action that will lead to the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. The right of government employees to organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike. The Court reiterated that while petitioners have the right to assemble peaceably, they must exercise such right in a lawful manner. Their absence from their schools during regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, resulted in the non-holding of classes and the deprivation of students of education, for which they were responsible. This act, by its nature, was enjoined by the Civil Service law, rules, and regulations, constituting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, an offense punishable under Section 46(27), Chapter 7, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). On the issue of back salaries: The Court reiterated its ruling in Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals that the denial of salary to an employee during the period of suspension, if found guilty, is proper because the employee has given ground for the suspension. The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to compensation if no service has been rendered. Since the petitioners did not work during the period for which they were claiming salaries, there is no legal or equitable basis to order the payment of such salaries.
Main Doctrine
Government employees may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and other forms of mass action that will lead to the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service, as the right to organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike. Unauthorized absences during regular school days, even if for the purpose of airing grievances, constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.