Gesite vs. Court of Appeals

Government employees may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, or other forms of mass action that result in the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service, and their unauthorized absence from duty to participate in such activities constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, even if the activity is framed as an exercise of the constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government; a suspended employee found guilty is not entitled to back salaries for the period of suspension because no service was rendered.

Starting March 1990, public school teachers in Metro Manila agitated for the immediate payment of allowances, the 13th month pay for 1989 under the Salary Standardization Law, the recall of DECS Order No. 39 (which directed the oversizing of classes and overloading of teachers), and the hiring of 47,000 new teachers. When their demands were unmet, the dissatisfied teachers resolved to take direct mass actions. On September 17, 1990, a regular school day, about 800 teachers did not conduct classes and instead assembled in front of the DECS offices to air their grievances. DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño warned them of dismissal, ordered them to return to work within 24 hours, and directed the initiation of administrative proceedings against those who disobeyed. The warning prompted more teachers, including the four petitioners, to join the protest, and they did not report for work on September 19–21, 1990.

• Context of the Mass Actions: Beginning March 1990, public school teachers in Metro Manila pressed for the immediate payment of allowances, 13th month pay for 1989 under the Salary Standardization Law, recall of DECS Order No. 39 (which directed the oversizing of classes and overloading of teachers), and the hiring of 47,000 new teachers. When these demands were not granted, the dissatisfied teachers resolved to undertake direct mass actions.
• The September 17, 1990 Assembly and Return-to-Work Order: On September 17, 1990, a regular school day, approximately 800 teachers did not hold classes and instead assembled in front of the DECS offices to air their grievances. DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño received their representatives but dismissed their complaints, warned them that they would lose their jobs for illegal mass actions, and ordered them to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. He simultaneously directed DECS officials to initiate administrative proceedings against those who remained obstinate.
• Petitioners’ Participation: The Secretary’s action led more teachers to join the protest. Petitioners, all teachers at the E. de los Santos Elementary School in Manila, did not report for work from September 19 to 21, 1990. Consequently, the DECS Secretary filed administrative complaints against them for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of the Civil Service Law and Regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave.
• Administrative Proceedings: Despite receipt of a notice to file their answer within seventy-two hours but not more than five days, petitioners failed to do so, and were deemed to have waived their right to controvert the charges. They were found guilty as charged and initially ordered dismissed from the service, but the penalty was later reduced to nine months suspension for petitioners Adelaida Macalindong and Guia Agaton and six months suspension for petitioners Leonora Gesite and Fe Lamoste.
• CSC Ruling: The CSC, on appeal, found petitioners liable for “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” on the ground that they acted without due regard to the adverse consequences of their action, which necessarily resulted in the suspension and stoppage of classes to the prejudice of the students to whom they were responsible. The CSC imposed a uniform penalty of six months suspension without pay.

• Constitutional Rights: Petitioners maintained that their participation in the mass actions was not a strike but a peaceful exercise of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and therefore they could not be administratively penalized.
• Back Salaries: Petitioners contended that they were entitled to the payment of back salaries covering the period when they were not allowed to teach.

• Limited Rights of Government Employees: The Solicitor General submitted that petitioners, as public school teachers forming part of the Civil Service, had a right to peaceful concerted activities that was not absolute and was subject to reasonable statutory limitations; the Constitution does not license government employees to engage in strikes, walkouts, or temporary work stoppages.
• Validity of Penalty and Denial of Backwages: The Solicitor General argued that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the CSC’s decision denying back salaries, as petitioners had given ground for their suspension.

• Liability for Mass Actions: Whether petitioners, by joining the mass actions of public school teachers that temporarily disrupted classes, may be administratively held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, despite their claim that they were merely exercising constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
• Entitlement to Back Salaries: Whether petitioners are entitled to back salaries for the period of their suspension.

• Liability for Mass Actions: The mass actions were held to be, to all intents and purposes, a strike — a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work undertaken for economic reasons — as previously settled in Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals and Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr. The fact that the participants did not use the term “strike” was immaterial; substance controlled over appearance. Petitioners were not penalized for exercising their right to peaceably assemble, but for absences without proper authority on regular school days, which resulted in the non-holding of classes and the deprivation of students of education. The settled rule prohibits government employees from engaging in strikes, walkouts, and mass actions that lead to the disruption of public service; their right to organize is limited to forming unions and does not include the right to strike. Had petitioners exercised their constitutional rights during free time — recess, after classes, weekends, or holidays — they could not have been held liable. Their unauthorized absences plainly constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under Section 46(27), Chapter 7, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987).
• Entitlement to Back Salaries: No back salaries could be awarded. The denial of salary during suspension, when the employee is later found guilty, is proper because the employee gave ground for the suspension. The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if no service was rendered; petitioners did not work during the period for which they claimed salaries, and there was thus no legal or equitable basis to order payment.

• Prohibition on Strikes by Government Employees — Government employees in the public service may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and other forms of mass action that cause 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. This principle is rooted in the necessity of uninterrupted public service and the sovereign nature of the employment relationship in the civil service.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — Unauthorized absences by public school teachers during regular school days that result in the non-holding of classes and the deprivation of students’ education constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The exercise of constitutional rights to assembly and petition must be undertaken in a lawful manner that does not entail abandonment of official duties; those rights may be exercised during an employee’s free time without incurring administrative liability.
• No Compensation Without Service — A public official or employee is not entitled to back salaries for the period of suspension during which no service was rendered, especially when the employee is subsequently found guilty of the offense that gave cause for the suspension. The denial of salary during suspension is proper because the employee’s own conduct gave ground for the disciplinary action.

• “The issue of whether or not the mass action launched by the public school teachers during the period from September up to the first half of October, 1990 was a strike has been decided by this Court … ‘that from the pleaded and admitted facts, these ‘mass actions’ were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers’ duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons.’”
• “Had petitioners availed themselves 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 this Court – could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
• “The denial of salary to an employee during the period of his suspension, if he should later be found guilty, is proper because he has given ground for his suspension. x x x Moreover, the general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service.”

• Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, 342 Phil. 586 (1997) — Followed; settled that the mass actions of public school teachers constituted a strike and that denial of back salaries after a guilty finding is proper.
• Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. Nos. 95445 & 95590, August 6, 1991, 200 SCRA 323 — Followed; established that the concerted unauthorized stoppage of work for economic reasons was to all intents and purposes a strike.
• Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 656 (1997) — Followed; distinguished between the permissible exercise of the rights to assemble and petition and the prohibited conduct of unauthorized absences that disrupt public service.
• Social Security System Employees Association (SSEA) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85279, July 28, 1989, 175 SCRA 686, and Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 60403, August 3, 1983, 124 SCRA 1 — Cited as authority for the rule that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or mass actions disrupting public service.

• Section 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances; invoked by petitioners but held not to shield unauthorized absences during work hours that disrupt public service.
• Section 8, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Protects the right to form unions and associations; cited to underscore that the right of government employees to organize is limited to formation of unions without including the right to strike.
• Section 46(27), Chapter 7, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Defines conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as a ground for disciplinary action; applied to petitioners’ unauthorized absences that caused the suspension of classes.

Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concurred. Davide, Jr., C.J., on official leave. Corona, J., on leave.