Government Employees Cannot Strike: Balancing Rights and Public Service

G.R. No. 124678, July 31, 1997

Imagine a city without teachers, nurses, or essential government services. Strikes by public sector employees can disrupt essential services and impact the public good. This case clarifies the extent to which government employees in the Philippines can exercise their rights to assembly and petition for grievances without disrupting public services.

Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, delves into the legality of mass actions by public school teachers and underscores the fundamental principle that while government employees have the right to organize and voice their concerns, this right does not extend to striking or disrupting public services. This case provides a clear understanding of the limitations placed on government employees’ rights to ensure the continuous delivery of essential public services.

The Legal Framework Governing Public Sector Labor Rights

Philippine law recognizes the right of government employees to form unions and associations. However, this right is carefully balanced against the public interest. The Constitution allows government employees to organize but prohibits them from engaging in strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs, and other forms of mass action that could disrupt public services.

The key legal principle at play is the understanding that the government’s ability to provide essential services to its citizens must not be compromised. This principle is rooted in the common law tradition, which recognizes the sovereign’s right to prohibit strikes by public employees. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, emphasizing that the right to organize does not automatically include the right to strike.

Relevant legal provisions include:

• The constitutional right to organize, which is limited for government employees.
• Civil Service laws and regulations prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Memorandum Circular No. 6, issued by the Civil Service Commission, although the court notes the prohibition exists even without such express prohibition.

“[G]overnment employees are prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public services. The right of government employees to organize is limited only to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.”

How the Teachers’ Mass Action Unfolded

In September 1990, a group of public school teachers, including the petitioners, staged a mass action to protest the government’s alleged failure to properly implement laws and measures intended for their benefit. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued a Return-to-Work Order, but the teachers failed to comply.

The teachers were charged with several offenses, including:

• Grave misconduct
• Gross neglect of duty
• Gross violation of Civil Service law, rules and regulations
• Refusal to perform official duty
• Gross insubordination
• Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
• Absence without official leave (AWOL)

The teachers were initially dismissed from service. Some filed motions for reconsideration, and their penalties were reduced to suspension. They then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed their appeals. Eventually, they appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which also found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed a six-month suspension. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision, leading to this Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the teachers were penalized not for exercising their right to peaceably assemble, but for their unauthorized absences that disrupted public services. The Court quoted its earlier resolution in Manila Public School Teachers Association, et al. vs. Laguio, Jr., stating that the 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.”

“It is not the exercise by the petitioners of their constitutional right to peaceably 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.”

Practical Implications: What This Means for Public Sector Employees

This case reinforces the principle that government employees cannot use strikes or mass actions as a means of demanding better working conditions or protesting government policies. While they have the right to organize and voice their concerns through appropriate channels, they must do so without disrupting essential public services. This ruling also clarifies the extent of the right to peaceable assembly for government employees.

Key Lessons:

• Government employees cannot strike or engage in mass actions that disrupt public services.
• The right to organize does not include the right to strike for public sector employees.
• Unauthorized absences resulting from mass actions can lead to disciplinary actions.
• Employees must exhaust administrative remedies and follow proper procedures when seeking redress of grievances.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can government employees form unions?

A: Yes, government employees have the right to form unions or associations to represent their interests.

Q: Are government employees allowed to strike?

A: No, government employees are prohibited from striking or engaging in mass actions that disrupt public services.

Q: What are the consequences of participating in an illegal strike?

A: Employees who participate in illegal strikes may face disciplinary actions, including suspension or dismissal from service.

Q: What alternative avenues are available for government employees to voice their concerns?

A: Government employees can voice their concerns through established grievance procedures, dialogues with management, and other non-disruptive means.

Q: Can an employee be preventively suspended during an investigation?

A: Yes, an employee can be preventively suspended if the charges against them involve dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, or neglect of duty.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and civil service regulations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.