Alipat vs. Court of Appeals

Public employees who are ordered reinstated after administrative proceedings are entitled to backwages only if they are found completely innocent of the charges that caused their suspension or dismissal, or if the suspension or dismissal was unjustified. Being found guilty of a lesser offense than originally charged does not equate to exoneration, and therefore does not entitle the employee to backwages.

In September 1990, public school teachers in Metro Manila staged mass actions (strikes) to press for economic demands, defying return-to-work orders issued by the DECS Secretary. This led to widespread administrative charges against participating teachers under Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), including charges of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and absence without leave.

• Petitioners are public school teachers in Metro Manila who participated in "mass actions" (illegal strikes) held on September 17-19, 1990, involving concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons.
• The DECS Secretary issued return-to-work orders which petitioners defied.
• Administrative complaints were filed charging petitioners 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 were placed under preventive suspension and given time to answer, but they failed to submit answers, which was considered a waiver.
• An investigation was conducted by a Committee formed by the DECS Secretary, who subsequently rendered judgment dismissing petitioners from service effective immediately.
• In their "Common Memorandum of Appeal" to the CSC, petitioners admitted they were absent from classes because they were engaged in peaceful assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances.
• The CSC found that excuses of being sick or on official business were unsupported by evidence, and held that petitioners participated in the mass actions.
• The CSC modified the penalty from dismissal to reprimand for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations (specifically failure to file applications for leave corresponding to September 18-21, 1990), and ordered automatic reinstatement.
• Petitioners claimed they were "exonerated" and entitled to backwages, arguing that the finding of the DECS Secretary regarding participation in mass actions was set aside.

• Petitioners were "exonerated" of the charges against them when the CSC modified the penalty from dismissal to reprimand, thus they are entitled to backwages under the rulings in Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals and Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a government employee must be completely exonerated to be entitled to backwages.
• They were denied due process because the investigating committee was not constituted in accordance with law (citing Fabella vs. Court of Appeals), specifically lacking a representative of the teachers' organization as required by the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (R.A. No. 4670), rendering the dismissal null and void.
• They limited the issue in their appeal to the right to receive backwages to simplify adjudication, no longer insisting on their prayer for exoneration.

• The petition is fatally infirm because petitioners improperly impleaded the Court of Appeals as a party respondent in violation of Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Public school teachers are covered by the Civil Service Law (P.D. No. 807) and do not have the right to strike or bargain collectively; the mass actions constituted an illegal strike.
• Petitioners were never found innocent of the charges; they were found guilty of joining an illegal strike and were liable for failure to file applications for leave of absence.
• Petitioners are not entitled to backwages because the government cannot be made to pay salaries during the time when petitioners were not rendering any service to the public.
• The immediate implementation of the dismissal orders was authorized by Section 47(4) of the Administrative Code of 1987.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition is dismissible for failure to comply with Section 4, Rule 45 regarding the impleading of the Court of Appeals as a respondent.
  • Whether the petition properly limited the issues to backwages only, thereby excluding consideration of the due process claim regarding the composition of the investigating committee.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioners are entitled to backwages after being found guilty of a lesser offense (violation of reasonable office rules) rather than the original charge (grave misconduct) and ordered reinstated.
  • Whether being found liable for a lesser offense constitutes "exoneration" for purposes of awarding backwages to public employees.
  • Whether the immediate execution of the dismissal order pending appeal was justified under the Administrative Code.

• Procedural:
  • The Court addressed the merits of the case despite the procedural infirmity regarding the improper impleading of the Court of Appeals.
  • The Court noted that petitioners specifically limited the issue in their appeal to the right to receive backwages. While petitioners raised due process violations regarding the DECS proceedings, the CSC had ruled that these deficiencies were cured in the formal hearings conducted by the MSPB; this ruling was not challenged in the present petition, which confined the issue to backwages.
• Substantive:
  • Petitioners are not entitled to backwages. The general rule is that a public official is not entitled to compensation if he has not rendered any service.
  • Backwages may only be awarded if the employee is found innocent of the charges which caused the suspension or when the suspension is unjustified.
  • Being found liable for a lesser offense (violation of reasonable office rules) is not equivalent to exoneration from the original complaint (grave misconduct). The petitioners were not found innocent of the charge that they participated in the illegal strike.
  • The immediate execution of the dismissal order was valid under Section 47(4), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), which provides that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal if he wins.
  • The cases of Bangalisan and Jacinto are distinguishable because in those cases, specific petitioners (Rodolfo Mariano and Merlinda Jacinto) were found not to have participated in the mass actions, whereas here petitioners admitted their participation in their Common Memorandum of Appeal.

• Right to Backwages of Public Officers — Public employees ordered reinstated after suspension or dismissal are entitled to backwages only if they are found innocent of the charges which caused the suspension, or if the suspension was unjustified. Mere reinstatement or commutation of penalty to a lesser offense does not automatically entitle the employee to backwages.
• Immediate Executory Nature of Administrative Decisions — Under Section 47(4) of the Administrative Code of 1987, an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins an appeal.
• Effect of Conviction of Lesser Offense — Being found guilty of a lesser offense than originally charged is not equivalent to exoneration from the original complaint. The employee is still considered not innocent of the charges proffered against him.
• Illegal Strike by Government Employees — Government employees, including public school teachers covered by the Civil Service Law (P.D. No. 807), do not have the right to strike. Mass actions involving concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons constitute an illegal strike.

• "It is settled that an employee who is reinstated to his former position may only be paid his back salaries if the employee concerned was found innocent of the charges proffered against him or if it be shown that the suspension or dismissal was unjustified on the general proposition that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service."
• "Being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration from the original complaint against the concerned officer or employee."
• "The mass actions of September/October 1990 staged by Metro Manila public school teachers amounted to a strike in every sense of the term, constituting, as they did, 'concerted and unauthorized stoppage of or absence from, work which it was the teachers' duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons.'"

• Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals — Cited by petitioners but distinguished; held that backwages may be awarded only if the employee is found innocent of the charges causing the suspension. Applied to deny backwages to petitioners herein who were not completely exonerated.
• Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals — Cited by petitioners but distinguished; reiterated that being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration. Rodolfo Mariano and Merlinda Jacinto were granted backwages only because they were found not to have participated in the illegal mass actions.
• Fabella vs. Court of Appeals — Cited by petitioners regarding due process violations in administrative hearings; distinguished because in Fabella the issue was promptly raised and was the only issue resolved, whereas here petitioners limited the issue to backwages.
• Manila Public School Teachers Association vs. Laguio, Jr. and Alliance of Concerned Teachers vs. Cariño — Cited to establish that the 1990 mass actions amounted to an illegal strike by government employees.
• Rolando Gan vs. Civil Service Commission — Cited to show that the claim of exercising constitutional right to peaceful assembly was rejected in the context of the teachers' mass actions.
• Sales vs. Mathay, Jr. — Cited for the general proposition that a public official is not entitled to compensation if he has not rendered any service.

• Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines) — Basis for administrative charges against petitioners for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, etc.; establishes that government employees do not have the right to strike.
• Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Section 47(4), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V — Provides that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case of suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal if he wins.
• Executive Order No. 292, Section 51, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A — Basis for preventive suspension where charges involve gravity of offense.
• Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) — Cited regarding requirement for representative of teachers' organization in investigating committee (Fabella case), but not applied here because the issue was limited to backwages.
• Rule 45, Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Respondents' argument regarding improper impleading of Court of Appeals as a party respondent.