Acosta vs. Court of Appeals

The Court held that mass actions by public school teachers constituting concerted and unauthorized work stoppages for economic reasons are illegal strikes, and participating teachers may be penalized for conduct prejudicial to the service; further, public employees found guilty of administrative offenses are not entitled to backwages for the period of suspension pending appeal, as such period becomes part of the final penalty.

Public school teachers in Metro Manila staged mass actions at Liwasang Bonifacio on various dates in September and October 1990 to petition the government for redress of grievances. The teachers did not report for work during this period and subsequently defied a return-to-work order issued by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Secretary on September 17, 1990.

• Mass Actions: Petitioners are public school teachers from various Metro Manila schools who participated in mass actions at Liwasang Bonifacio on various dates in September and October 1990. They did not report for work during these periods to petition the government for redress of their grievances.
• Administrative Charges: Based on reports from their respective school principals, petitioners were administratively charged with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of civil service law, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave (AWOL). Petitioners failed to submit their answers to the charges within the required period, which was deemed a waiver of their right to controvert the charges.
• Dismissal: DECS Secretary Cariño found petitioners guilty as charged and ordered their immediate dismissal from the service.
• Modification on Appeal: On appeal, the CSC found petitioners guilty of the lesser offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, meting a penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay. Because the period they were out of service exceeded the penalty, the CSC ordered their automatic reinstatement.

• Petitioners maintained that their participation in the mass actions was a valid exercise of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
• Petitioners argued that they never went on strike because they never sought to secure changes or modifications to the terms and conditions of their employment.
• Petitioners contended that they are entitled to backwages, invoking the ruling in Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals that backwages may be awarded if an employee is found innocent of the charges causing the suspension. They asserted that the CSC's alleged failure to substantiate their participation in a "teacher's strike" in a related resolution amounted to a finding of innocence.
• Petitioners further argued that the five-year period from their dismissal to the CSC's modification of the penalty amounted to unjustified suspension, entitling them to backwages pursuant to Bautista v. Peralta and Abellera v. City of Baguio.

• Respondents, through the Solicitor General, countered that it was not the exercise of the constitutional right to peaceable assembly that was punished, but the manner in which the right was exercised, which resulted in the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service and classes.
• Respondents emphasized that efficient and non-disruptive avenues exist for petitioners to air their grievances, making the mass actions unjustified.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the public school teachers' participation in mass actions constitutes an illegal strike unprotected by the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to backwages for the period of their suspension pending appeal.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • On the legality of the mass actions: The Court ruled that the mass actions were illegal strikes. The Court held that the concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for essentially economic reasons constitutes a strike, regardless of the nomenclature used by the employees. Because public employees do not have the right to strike, their absences constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The constitutional right to peaceably assemble does not justify unauthorized absences that disrupt public services and prejudice the students for whose education the teachers are responsible.
  • On the entitlement to backwages: The Court ruled that petitioners are not entitled to backwages. As a general proposition, a public official is not entitled to compensation for services not rendered. Being found guilty of a lesser offense (conduct prejudicial to the service) does not amount to exoneration. Pursuant to Section 47(2) of the Administrative Code, the dismissal orders issued by Secretary Cariño were executory pending appeal. Under Section 47(4), if the employee's conviction is affirmed on appeal, the period of preventive suspension pending appeal becomes part of the final penalty. Furthermore, any alleged denial of due process was cured by the full ventilation of the case on appeal.

• Illegality of Strikes by Public Employees — Public employees do not have the right to engage in concerted work stoppages or strikes for any purpose. The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. Mass actions constituting concerted and unauthorized absences for economic reasons are illegal strikes, and participating employees may be penalized for conduct prejudicial to the service.
• Preventive Suspension Pending Appeal — Under the Administrative Code, a decision by a department secretary confirming the dismissal of an employee is executory pending appeal. If the employee's conviction is affirmed on appeal, the period of suspension pending appeal becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal. Consequently, the employee is not entitled to backwages for such period, as the suspension is not unjustified.
• Lesser Offense is Not Exoneration — Being found liable for a lesser administrative offense is not equivalent to exoneration. A finding of guilt, even of a lesser charge, precludes an award of backwages based on exoneration.

• "The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. In the absence of statute, public employees for not have the right to engaged in concerted work stoppages for any purpose."
• "It is not the exercise by the petitioners of their constitutional right to peaceable assemble that was punished, but the manner in which they exercised such right which resulted in the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service and classes in various public schools in Metro Manila."
• "Being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration."

• Manila Public School Teachers' Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio, Jr. — Followed. Established the doctrine that mass actions by public school teachers constituted illegal strikes, being concerted and unauthorized work stoppages for economic reasons.
• Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals — Followed and Distinguished. The Court followed the ruling that substance prevails over form in determining the existence of a strike. The Court distinguished the ruling on backwages, clarifying that backwages are awarded only upon exoneration, which did not occur in this case.
• Jacinto v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Upheld the legality of the immediate execution of the dismissal orders issued by the DECS Secretary pending appeal.
• Gloria v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Explained that preventive suspension pending appeal is punitive and becomes part of the final penalty if the conviction is affirmed, thereby precluding backwages.
• Fabella v. Court of Appeals — Distinguished. In Fabella, the administrative proceedings were declared void for lack of due process, justifying backwages. In the present case, any procedural defect was cured by a full appeal, and the proceedings were not void.

• Section 47(2), Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Provides that decisions of department secretaries dismissing employees are executory pending appeal. The Court applied this provision to justify the legality of the petitioners' dismissal during the pendency of their appeal.
• Section 47(4), Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Provides that if the respondent is not exonerated on appeal, the period of preventive suspension pending appeal becomes part of the final penalty. The Court applied this provision to deny the petitioners' claim for backwages.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, and Buena, JJ.