Acosta V CA

[G.R. No. 132088.
June 28, 2000] ZENAIDA SALAZAR, FE SALIMA, SHIRLEY SARAGON,

PURIFICACION SARI, ELVIRA SATUMBAGA, MARIBEY SEALMOY,
EVERDINA ACOSTA, NOEMI ACOSTA, ELVIRA AMPARADO, EDITHA SINJAY, TITA SILVINO, AURORA TOLENTINO,
REBECCA AQUINO, ROBERTO ARCAYA, EVA ARCEO, JULIET ESPERANZA URBIZTONDO, SATURNINO YODICO, RODOLFO
ARELLANO, ANITA ASCANO, GRACE AUSTRA, LUISA AVILES, MARIANO,ALICIA MARINAY, SUSAN MATANGA, PATRIA MATIAS,
SUSIE AW, VICTORIA BADILLO SUSAN BALDEMOR, ELISA BASA, LOUELITA MAYUNA, LOLITA MERCADO, EUGENIA MILLA,
NORY BATUIGAS, TERESITA BAUTISTA, SEGUNDINA BERMAS, CRESENCIA MIRADOR, ERMA MORAL, RAQUEL MORALES,
FERMINER BOCO, EVELYN BULAONG, SYLVIA BULARIO, GILDA DOLORES LAGRADA, petitioners,
BOLOSAN, JOSIE BUNGAY, ARACELI CABUSE, TERESA CACHO,
ROSSANA CAJANDINEZ, NELY CALPITO, OLIVIA CARDINES, vs.
THELMA CARINO, CORAZON CARRACEDO, ELENITA CASAUAY,
MARIETA CAULI, MARILOU CAYTON, VIRGINIA CHIAPOCO, HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE CIVIL SERVICE
ALLEN CIPRIANO, MELINDA B. CONTRERAS, ZENAIDA COMMISSION and THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE
CORPORAL, PRISCILLA CORPUZ, LUZ COSIO, EMILIA CRUZ, AND SPORTS, respondents.
CRISTINA DELA CRUZ, ROSALINA DELA CRUZ, GRACE
CUNANAN, EVELYN DE CASTRO, HAYDEE DE VALLE, CECILIA DECISION
DEL ROSARIO, GULLERMINA DE LA CRUZ, FRANCIS DlNGIL,
BELLA DY, CORAZON ESTEBAL, LUZ FAJARDO, TERESA FRAGO, DE LEON, JR., J.:
VIRGINIA GACHO, SABINO GALES, MYRNA GALLEGO, MARILYN
GARNA, NATIVIDAD GAVILAN, LOLITA GAVINO, MARILOU GO,
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set
LETICIA GOMEZ, OLYMPIO GONZAGA, RUTH GONZALES,
aside the Decision[1] dated August 29, 1997 and Resolution[2] dated
REMEDIOS HAVOC, GREGORIA HERNANDEZ, OSCAR HIDALGO,
January 7, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39878,
BIBIANO HUGO, RITA HUERTA, LOURDES HULIPAS, ROMEO
affirming the Resolutions [3] of respondent Civil Service Commission
IDOS, ERLINDA ISLA, LITA ITALIA, MATIAS JABONETE, DIANA
(CSC) finding petitioners guilty of conduct prejudicial to the service
JIMENEZ, DOMINADOR LABACLADO, ALMA LAGUIAN, MELCY
and imposing a penalty of six-(6) months suspension without pay.
LALU, REBECCA LAMALINAO, MARITA LAMSEN, LOURDES
ESTER LAREDO, TERESITA LATION, ROSALINA LEDESMA,
NORMA LECCIONES, NORMA LEYTE, CECILIA LINCOPINES, Petitioners are teachers from different public schools in Metro
OFELIA LIZARDO, VENILLA LOCSIN, ADELINA LORENZO, Manila. On various dates in September and October 1990,
SATURNINA LORENZO, ALEJANDRA MABAET, JULIETA MADRID, petitioners did not report for work and instead, participated in mass
ERLINDA MAGPAYO, ROLANDO MAGSINO, ERLINDA MAILIG, actions by public school teachers at the Liwasang Bonifacio for the
FLORENDA MALAPAYA, CORAZON MALLEN, ESMERALDA purpose of petitioning the government for redress of their grievances.
MANALANG, MERLE MANALO, ERLINDA MANEGA, SHIRLEY
MANGAHAS, ELFRIDA MARQUEZ, EFIGENIA MENEZ, NILDA On the basis of reports submitted by their respective school
NAVA, MERLY NERY, ROSAMINDA OBEN, MELISSA OLAQUERRA, principals that petitioners participated in said mass actions and
ENRIQUETA OLIVAR, DOLORES ORDINARIO, ESTRELLA refused to comply with the return-to-work order issued on
ORTEGA, ROSE ORPRECIO, AURORA OSTACO, ELVIRA September 17, 1990 by then Secretary Isidro D. Cario of the
PAMPANGA, NORMA PAQUIZ, EVANGELINE PARDO, GLORIA Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), petitioners
PARMAN, ERLINDA PASTRANA, LERMA QUIRIT, MECELIN were administratively charged with such offenses as grave
QUILANDRA, MEWLIN QUILLANORA, NATIVIDAD RAGUD, misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of civil service law,
ERLINDA RANTE, EUFEMIA RAMIREZ, JUDITHA RANESES, rules and regulations and reasonable office regulations, refusal to
ULDARICO REJABA, MELINA REJUSO, FELISA RENIDO, perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to
MILAGROS REY, REDENTOR REYES, RESALINA SAGUN, the best interest of the service and absence without official leave.
Petitioners failed to answer these charges. Following the changes or modification of the terms and conditions of their
investigations conducted by the DECS Investigating Committees, employment.
Secretary Cario found petitioners guilty as charged and ordered their
immediate dismissal from the service. [4] Petitioners' contentions are without merit. The character and legality
of the mass actions which they participated in have been passed
Petitioners appealed the orders of Secretary Cario to the Merit upon by this Court as early as 1990 in Manila Public School
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and later to the CSC. In 1995, the Teachers' Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio, Jr. [6] wherein we ruled that
CSC modified the said orders of Secretary Cario as follows: "these 'mass actions' were to all intents and purposes a strike; they
constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby finds Everdina Acosta guilty from, work which it was the teachers' sworn duty to perform,
of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. She is undertaken for essentially economic reasons." [7] In Bangalisan v.
hereby meted out the penalty of six (6) months suspension without Court of Appeals,[8] we added that:
pay. Considering the period of time she was out of service, she is
automatically reinstated to her former positions (sic). [5] It is an undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that
petitioners' purpose was to realize their demands by withholding
Following the denial of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners their services. The fact that the conventional term "strike" was not
questioned the matter before the Court of Appeals. The appellate used by the striking employees to describe their common course of
court denied their petition for certiorari and subsequent motion for action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and
reconsideration. Hence, this petition. not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling.
Petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration: The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. In the
absence of statute, public employees do not have the right to engage
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT in concerted work stoppages for any purpose.
AFFIRMED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION THAT WRONGLY PENALIZED PETITIONERS WHOSE Further, herein petitioners, except Mariano, are being penalized not
ONLY "OFFENSE" WAS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSITUTIONAL because they exercised their right of peaceable assembly and petition
RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE for redress of grievances but because of their successive
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. unauthorized and unilateral absences which produced adverse
effects upon their students for whose education they are responsible.
RESPONDENT COYRT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT The actuations of petitioners definitely constituted conduct
AFFIRMED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE prejudicial to the best interest of the service, punishable under the
COMMISSION THAT WRONGLY DENIED PETITIONERS THEIR Civil Service law, rules and regulations.
RIGHT TO BACKWAGES.
As aptly stated by the Solicitor General, "It is not the exercise by the
This petition is not impressed with merit. petitioners of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble that
was punished, but the manner in which they exercised such right
Petitioners do not deny their absence from work nor the fact that which resulted in the temporary stoppage or disruption of public
said absences were due to their participation in the mass actions at service and classes in various public schools in Metro Manila. For,
the Liwasang Bonifacio. However, they contend that their indeed, there are efficient and non-disruptive avenues, other than
participation in the mass actions was an exercise of their the mass actions in question, whereby petitioners could petition the
constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."
government for redress of grievances. Petitioners likewise maintain
that they never went on strike because they never sought to secure
It bears stressing that suspension of public services, however belied by the determination of the CSC that their participation in the
temporary, will inevitably derail services to the public, which is one mass actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the service. Being
of the reasons why the right to strike is denied government found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration. [15]
employees. It may be conceded that the petitioners had valid
grievances and noble intentions in staging the "mass actions," but Petitioners also point out that from the issuance of the orders of
that will not justify their absences to the prejudice of innocent school dismissal by Secretary Cario to the modification thereof by the CSC,
children. Their righteous indignation does not legalize an illegal work almost five (5) years elapsed. Petitioners argue that the period in
stoppage.[9] excess of their preventive suspension and penalty of six (6) months
suspension amounted to unjustified suspension for which an award
In Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, [10] De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, of backwages was proper pursuant to our rulings in Bautista v.
[11]
and Alipat v. Court of Appeals, [12] we upheld our rulings in MPSTA Peralta[16] and Abellera v. City of Baguio.[17]
and Bangalisan. Considering the factual circumstances of this case
and the doctrine of stare decisis to which we consistently adhere, we We disagree. It will be recalled that in Jacinto, we upheld the legality
find no compelling reason to deviate from our earlier rulings in these of the immediate execution of the dismissal orders issued by
related cases. Secretary Cario on the ground that under Section 47(2), [18] Subtitle A,
Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Anent the second issue, petitioners invoke our statement Administrative Code of 1987, the decision of a department secretary
in Bangalisan that payment of salaries corresponding to the period confirming the dismissal of an employee under his jurisdiction is
when an employee is not allowed to work may be decreed if he is executory even pending appeal thereof. [19] Since dismissal orders
found innocent of the charges which caused his suspension and if remain valid and effective until modified or set aside, the intervening
his suspension is unjustified. Petitioners cite CSC Resolution No. 93- period during which an employee is not permitted to work cannot be
162 and contend that the determination of the CSC therein that not argued as amounting to unjustified suspension. In Gloria v. Court of
an iota of evidence was given to substantiate the conclusion that Appeals,[20] we further explained that:
they participated in a "teacher's strike" amounted to a finding that
they were innocent of the charges filed against them. Preventive suspension pending investigation, as already discussed, is
not a penalty but only a means of enabling the disciplining authority
As a general proposition, a public official is not entitled to any to conduct an unhampered investigation. On the other hand,
compensation if he has not rendered any service. [13] While there are preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it
recognized instances when backwages may be awarded to a is in effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is
suspended or dismissed public official who is later ordered exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is
reinstated, as pointed by petitioners in citing Bangalisan, the reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full pay for the period
factual circumstances of the case at bar impel us to rule otherwise. of the suspension. Thus, 47(4) states that respondent "shall be
considered as under preventive suspension during the pendency of
Petitioners' reliance on CSC Resolution No. 93-162 is misplaced. the appeal in the event he wins." On the other hand, if his conviction
Said CSC resolution disposed of the appeals of Fely Ilarina, Adelaida is affirmed, i.e. if he is not exonerated, the period of his suspension
Dela Cruz, Alicia Galvo, Nenita Albios and Nerissa Abellanda. becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal. [21]
Petitioners were never parties to their appeals and, therefore, cannot
cite CSC Resolution No. 93-162 in support of their contention. Petitioners' reliance on Fabella v. Court of Appeals [22] is likewise
Petitioners also overlook the fact that although no evidence was unavailing. In that case, the petitioners therein immediately went to
presented to prove that Ilarina, et al. participated in the mass court to seek injunctive relief against the DECS administrative
actions, the CSC explained that the deficiency was cured by their proceedings on the ground that they were deprived of due process.
admissions during the hearings before the MSPB. [14] More The trial court declared the administrative proceedings void and
importantly, however, herein petitioners' claim of exoneration is ordered the payment of backwages to the petitioners therein. The
Court of Appeals then upheld the order of the trial court. In affirming
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we stated therein that:
x x x Because the administrative proceedings involved in this case

are void, no delinquency or misconduct may be imputed to private
respondents. Moreover, the suspension or dismissal meted on them
is baseless. Private respondents should, as a consequence, be
reinstated and awarded all monetary benefits that may have accrued
to them during the period of their unjustified suspension or
dismissal. x x x[23]
On the other hand, in the case at bar, petitioners initially assailed

the alleged non-observance of due process by the DECS Investigating
Committees only upon appeal to the MSPB. Significantly, however, it
has been our consistent ruling that an appeal is curative of any
supposed denial of due process. [24] Thus, after full ventilation of their
case before the MSPB and CSC, and later on before the Court of
Appeals, petitioners cannot now allege denial of due process to
justify their claim for backwages.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Buena, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., no part.

Acosta V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acosta V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acosta V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 132088.

June 28, 2000] ZENAIDA SALAZAR, FE SALIMA, SHIRLEY SARAGON,

x x x Because the administrative proceedings involved in this case

On the other hand, in the case at bar, petitioners initially assailed

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Buena, JJ., concur.

Quisumbing, J., no part.

You might also like