Striking Public School Teachers Not Entitled to Back Wages: A Case on Justifiable Suspension

TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies that public school teachers participating in illegal strikes and subsequently penalized with reprimand are not entitled to back wages for the period of their preventive suspension. The decision emphasizes that back wages are only granted when an employee is exonerated or unjustly suspended, which is not the case when teachers are found to have engaged in unlawful mass actions, even if the penalty is reduced from dismissal to reprimand.

G.R. No. 132841, June 21, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine public school teachers, the backbone of education, taking to the streets in protest, leaving classrooms empty and students unattended. This was the reality in the Philippines in September 1990 when numerous Metro Manila public school teachers engaged in mass actions demanding better working conditions. The ensuing legal battles reached the Supreme Court, one such case being Alipat vs. Court of Appeals. At its heart, this case tackles a crucial question: Are public school teachers who participate in illegal strikes and are later penalized, entitled to back wages for the time they were preventively suspended, even if their dismissal is eventually reduced to a lighter penalty?

LEGAL CONTEXT: Strikes, Public Sector Employees, and Back Wages in the Philippines

Philippine law distinguishes between the rights of private and public sector employees when it comes to strikes. While the right to strike is recognized for workers in the private sector, it is significantly restricted for those in government service. This distinction stems from the nature of public service, which is considered essential for the functioning of the state and the welfare of the public.

Presidential Decree No. 807, also known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines (which was in effect at the time of the case), and later the Administrative Code of 1987, govern the conduct and discipline of government employees. These laws outline various offenses, including “grave misconduct,” “gross neglect of duty,” and “violation of reasonable office rules and regulations,” which can lead to administrative penalties ranging from reprimand to dismissal.

Crucially, the Supreme Court has consistently held that public school teachers, as government employees, do not have the same right to strike as private sector workers. As the Supreme Court stated in earlier cases like Manila Public School Teachers Association vs. Laguio, Jr. and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) vs. Cariño, mass actions by public school teachers for economic reasons are considered illegal strikes. These rulings established that such actions are an unauthorized stoppage of work and a dereliction of their duties.

Regarding back wages, the general principle in Philippine jurisprudence is “no work, no pay.” However, jurisprudence has carved out exceptions. Employees are entitled to back wages if they are exonerated of the charges against them or if their suspension or dismissal is proven to be unjustified. This principle was further refined in cases like Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals and Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, which became central to the Alipat case.

Section 47(4), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) states:

(4) 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.’

This provision highlights that even while appealing a dismissal, the dismissal can be immediately implemented. Preventive suspension is authorized when the charges involve grave misconduct or neglect of duty, as was the initial charge against the teachers in this case.

CASE BREAKDOWN: Alipat vs. Court of Appeals

The case began with administrative complaints filed against Carmen Alipat and 27 other public school teachers in Metro Manila. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Secretary charged them with multiple offenses stemming from their participation in “mass actions” held from September 17-19, 1990. These charges included 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).

Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

1. Initial Charges and Preventive Suspension by DECS Secretary: Based on reports from school principals, the DECS Secretary, Isidro Cariño, filed administrative complaints and placed the teachers under preventive suspension.
2. Investigation and Dismissal by DECS Secretary: The teachers failed to submit answers to the charges, which was considered a waiver. An investigation committee was formed, and subsequently, Secretary Cariño dismissed the teachers from service.
3. Appeal to the Merit and Systems Protection Board (MSPB): The teachers appealed to the MSPB, which dismissed their appeal.
4. Appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC): The CSC reversed the MSPB decision, finding the teachers guilty only of “violation of reasonable office rules and regulations” (for failing to file leave applications) and reduced the penalty to reprimand. They were ordered reinstated but denied back wages.
5. Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA): The teachers elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, questioning the denial of back wages and the legality of the reprimand. The CA affirmed the CSC’s decision, upholding the reprimand and the denial of back wages. The CA reasoned that the preventive suspension was valid due to the gravity of the initial charges, and the teachers were not “innocent” despite the reduced penalty.
6. Petition to the Supreme Court: The teachers then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, focusing solely on their claim for back wages. They argued they were effectively “exonerated” because the CSC reduced the penalty to reprimand.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, ultimately denied the teachers’ petition. The Court reiterated that the mass actions were indeed illegal strikes. It emphasized that the teachers were not exonerated, even with the reduced penalty. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals:

“being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration.”

The Supreme Court also highlighted the factual finding of the Civil Service Commission, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals, that the teachers did participate in the mass actions. This finding was based partly on the teachers’ own admission in their “Common Memorandum of Appeal” where they acknowledged being absent from classes to participate in “peaceful assembly.”

The Court distinguished this case from Bangalisan and Jacinto, where back wages were granted to some teachers because there was no proof of their participation in the illegal strikes. In Alipat, the participation was established, and therefore, the denial of back wages was deemed justified.

The Supreme Court concluded:

“Petitioners were not found innocent of the charge that they participated in the illegal strike… The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that petitioners were not ‘completely exonerated’.”

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lessons for Public Sector Employees and Government Agencies

This case serves as a significant reminder for public sector employees, particularly teachers, about the limitations on their right to strike and the consequences of participating in illegal mass actions. While the right to peaceful assembly and petition for redress of grievances is constitutionally protected, this right is not absolute, especially for those in public service.

For Public Sector Employees:

• Understand the limitations on strike rights: Public sector employees, especially those in essential services like education, have a limited right to strike compared to private sector workers. Mass actions for economic demands can be deemed illegal strikes.
• Proper channels for grievances: Instead of resorting to illegal strikes, utilize established grievance mechanisms and legal channels to address concerns with government agencies.
• Consequences of illegal strikes: Participating in illegal strikes can lead to administrative charges, including suspension and dismissal, and may result in the denial of back wages even if penalties are eventually reduced.

For Government Agencies:

• Preventive suspension justified by grave charges: Government agencies are justified in imposing preventive suspension when employees are facing serious charges like grave misconduct or gross neglect of duty, even if the final penalty is lighter.
• Back wages only upon exoneration or unjust suspension: Back wages are only legally mandated when an employee is fully exonerated or if the suspension was proven to be without basis. A reduction in penalty does not automatically equate to entitlement to back wages.
• Importance of factual findings: Administrative bodies and courts will rely heavily on factual findings regarding employee participation in illegal activities when determining disciplinary actions and entitlement to back wages.

Key Lessons from Alipat vs. Court of Appeals:

• Public school teachers’ mass actions for economic reasons are considered illegal strikes.
• Preventive suspension is valid based on the gravity of the initial charges, not just the final penalty.
• Reduction of penalty to reprimand does not equate to exoneration.
• Back wages are not granted when employees are found to have participated in illegal strikes, even if the final penalty is a reprimand.
• Public sector employees must utilize legal channels for grievances instead of illegal strikes.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: Are public school teachers allowed to strike in the Philippines?

A: The right to strike for public school teachers, as government employees, is significantly limited. Mass actions intended as strikes, especially for economic demands, are generally considered illegal.

Q: What is preventive suspension, and when can it be imposed?

A: Preventive suspension is a temporary suspension from work while an administrative investigation is ongoing. It can be imposed when an employee is charged with grave offenses like grave misconduct or gross neglect of duty to prevent them from influencing the investigation.

Q: Am I entitled to back wages if I am suspended but later reinstated?

A: You are generally entitled to back wages only if you are found innocent of the charges that led to your suspension or if your suspension was proven to be unjustified. If you are found guilty of an offense, even if the penalty is reduced, you may not be entitled to back wages for the suspension period.

Q: What constitutes an illegal strike for public sector employees?

A: An illegal strike in the public sector typically involves a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work by employees for economic reasons or in violation of civil service rules and regulations.

Q: What are the possible penalties for participating in an illegal strike as a public school teacher?

A: Penalties can range from reprimand to suspension, and in severe cases, dismissal from service, depending on the nature and severity of the offense and the employee’s record.

Q: If my dismissal is reduced to a reprimand, does that mean I was exonerated?

A: No, a reduction in penalty does not automatically mean exoneration. As the Supreme Court clarified, being found liable for a lesser offense is not equivalent to being found innocent of the original charges.

ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law and administrative law in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.