De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

The Court held that public school teachers' mass actions involving unauthorized absences from work on regular school days to protest economic grievances constitute an illegal strike and amount to conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, for which they may be disciplinarily penalized; furthermore, teachers whose dismissal orders are immediately executed pursuant to the Administrative Code and are subsequently found guilty of a lesser offense are not entitled to back wages for the period of their absence.

Metro Manila public school teachers staged mass actions from September 19 to 21, 1990, to protest the unjust implementation of the salary standardization law, non-payment of fringe benefits, and imposition of additional teaching loads. Then DECS Secretary Isidro D. Cariño issued a return-to-work order on September 17, 1990, which the teachers defied. Consequently, Secretary Cariño filed motu proprio administrative complaints against the teachers for 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). The teachers failed to submit their answers within the given period, leading to their dismissal from service.

• The Mass Actions: Public school teachers in Metro Manila engaged in mass actions from September 19 to 21, 1990, to protest economic grievances, including the perceived unjust implementation of the salary standardization law, non-payment of fringe benefits, and additional teaching loads.
• Return-to-Work Order: DECS Secretary Isidro D. Cariño issued a return-to-work order on September 17, 1990, which the teachers subsequently defied.
• Administrative Charges: Secretary Cariño filed motu proprio administrative complaints against the teachers, charging them 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 AWOL.
• Failure to Answer: The teachers, through counsel, requested a 30-day extension to submit their answers, which was denied. Their failure to submit the required answer within the original period was considered a waiver of their right to controvert the charges.
• Dismissal: Secretary Cariño found the teachers guilty as charged and dismissed them from office effective immediately, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989 of the CSC.
• CSC Modification: On appeal, the CSC found the teachers guilty only of "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service" and reduced the penalty to six months' suspension. Because the teachers had already been out of service for a longer period due to the immediate implementation of the dismissal orders, the CSC ordered their automatic reinstatement without back wages.

• Petitioners argued that they should not be penalized because they were merely exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
• Petitioners contended that the mass actions were not "strikes" because there was no actual disruption of classes, asserting that substitute teachers were immediately appointed by Secretary Cariño.
• In the alternative, petitioners prayed for the award of back wages for the period of three years when they were not allowed to work while awaiting the resolution of their appeals by the MSPB and CSC, deducting the six-month suspension period eventually meted out.

• Respondents maintained that the mass actions constituted an illegal strike, representing a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons, which disrupted classes and defied a lawful return-to-work order.
• Respondents argued that the constitutional right to peaceably assemble must be exercised within reasonable limits and does not justify abandoning classes to the prejudice of the students.
• Respondents contended that the immediate execution of the dismissal orders was expressly authorized by the Administrative Code of 1987, and thus the teachers are not entitled to back wages since they were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the public school teachers' mass actions constituted an illegal strike or a valid exercise of the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
  • Whether the teachers are entitled to back wages for the period they were out of the service due to the immediate implementation of the dismissal orders, given that the CSC subsequently reduced the penalty to six months' suspension.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the mass actions constituted an illegal strike. Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court reiterated its previous rulings in Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr. and Alliance of Concerned Teachers v. Hon. Isidro Cariño that the concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons amounted to a strike. The constitutional right to peaceably assemble must be exercised within reasonable limits; by staging protests on regular school days, abandoning classes, and defying return-to-work orders, the teachers committed acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The appointment of substitute teachers did not erase their administrative liability for the intended consequences of their unauthorized absences.
  • The Court ruled that the teachers are not entitled to back wages. Citing Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that an award of back wages in administrative cases requires either exoneration or unjustified suspension. The immediate execution of the dismissal orders was legally sanctioned by Section 47, paragraph (2), of the Administrative Code of 1987; hence, the suspension was not unjustified. Furthermore, the CSC's reduction of the penalty to a lesser offense (conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service) did not amount to exoneration, as the CSC still found that the teachers actually participated in the illegal mass actions. Being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to being fully innocent of the charges.

• Stare decisis et non quieta movere — The doctrine that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same. The Court applied this doctrine to adopt its previous rulings in Manila Public School Teachers Association, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Gan, Bagana, and Bangalisan, which settled the issues of whether the mass actions were illegal strikes and whether back wages were proper.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — The doctrine that the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, when exercised through unauthorized absences from work on regular school days and defiance of return-to-work orders, constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The right to free assembly must be exercised within reasonable limits that do not prejudice public welfare, particularly the education of the youth.
• Back Wages in Administrative Cases — The doctrine that back wages are awarded only when the dismissed employee is exonerated or unjustifiably suspended. Two circumstances bar the award of back wages: (1) if the immediate execution of the dismissal order is authorized by law (such as Sec. 47, par. 2, of the Administrative Code of 1987), rendering the suspension justified; and (2) if the employee is found guilty of a lesser offense, which does not constitute exoneration, as the employee still gave cause for suspension.

• "Had the teachers availed of their free time — recess, after classes, weekends or holidays — to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one — not the DECS, the CSC or even the Supreme Court — could have held them liable for their participation in the mass actions."
• "Being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration."
• "[T]he prompt remedial action taken by Secretary Cariño might have partially deflected the adverse effects of the mass protests did not erase the administrative liability of petitioners for the intended consequences thereof which were the very reason why such prompt remedial action became necessary."

• Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 95445 (6 August 1991) — Controlling precedent. Established that the 1990 mass actions by public school teachers amounted to a strike, constituting a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons.
• Alliance of Concerned Teachers v. Hon. Isidro Cariño, G.R. No. 95590 (6 August 1991) — Controlling precedent. Concurrringly held with Laguio that the mass actions were illegal strikes.
• Rolando Gan v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. Nos. 110717 and 110721-22 (14 December 1993) — Followed. Ruled that the constitutional right to peaceably assemble must be exercised within reasonable limits and distinguished PBM Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., holding that the education of the youth is a higher consideration that equates with, rather than yields to, the right to assembly.
• Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124678 (31 July 1997) — Controlling precedent on the back wages issue. Held that teachers found guilty of a lesser offense are not exonerated and are not entitled to back wages when the immediate execution of dismissal is authorized by the Administrative Code.
• Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124540 (14 November 1997) — Followed. Denied back wages to teachers who gave cause for suspension but granted back wages to those who were absent for justifiable reasons (e.g., illness, attending a wake).
• PBM Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., No. L-31195 (5 June 1973) — Distinguished. The Court held that PBM is not applicable to the teachers' case because PBM pitted free expression against inferior property rights, whereas the teachers' case involved the education of the youth, which occupies a higher consideration.

• Section 47, Paragraph (2), Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Provides that the decision of a Secretary or head of agency imposing the penalty of removal is executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned, thereby sanctioning the immediate execution of Secretary Cariño's dismissal orders pending appeal.
• Section 37, Paragraph (b), Article IX, Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines) — Cited alongside the Administrative Code as sanctioning the immediate execution of the dismissal orders.
• Section 32, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 — Cited as additional basis authorizing the immediate implementation of the dismissal orders.
• Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989, Civil Service Commission — Guidelines in the Application of Penalty in Administrative Cases, under which Secretary Cariño imposed the penalty of immediate dismissal.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.