Limits to Public Sector Strikes in the Philippines: Striking Teachers and the Right to Back Pay

Public Sector Employees Beware: Mass Actions Can Be Illegal Strikes

TLDR: Public school teachers in the Philippines who participate in mass actions during school days, disrupting classes, are considered to be engaging in illegal strikes. This case clarifies that such actions are not protected as a mere exercise of the right to assembly and petition for grievances, and employees participating in such strikes may face penalties, including suspension, without back pay.

G.R. No. 128559 & G.R. No. 130911

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where public services grind to a halt because government employees decide to stage a mass protest during work hours. This isn’t just a hypothetical concern; it’s a reality that Philippine jurisprudence has addressed, particularly concerning public school teachers. This landmark Supreme Court case delves into the legality of mass actions by public sector employees, specifically teachers, and their entitlement to back salaries when penalized for participating in such actions. At the heart of the issue lies the delicate balance between the constitutional right to assembly and petition for grievances, and the essential duty of public servants to maintain uninterrupted public service. This case arose from mass actions by numerous public school teachers in Metro Manila in September 1990, leading to administrative charges and subsequent legal battles concerning the legality of their actions and their right to compensation for periods of suspension.

LEGAL CONTEXT: STRIKES IN THE PHILIPPINE PUBLIC SECTOR

In the Philippines, the right to strike is not absolute, especially for government employees. While the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, this right is not without limitations, particularly for those in public service. The legal framework governing the conduct of government employees emphasizes the paramount importance of continuous public service.

Key to understanding this case is the Civil Service Law and established jurisprudence. Civil service rules strictly prohibit strikes, unauthorized mass leaves, and other forms of mass actions by civil servants that disrupt public services. These prohibitions are rooted in the principle that public service must be carried out without interruption to ensure the smooth functioning of government and the delivery of essential services to the public. As the Supreme Court has consistently held, the right to assemble must be exercised within reasonable limits to avoid prejudice to public welfare.

Relevant legal precedents, such as *Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr.* and *Alliance of Concerned Teachers vs. Hon. Isidro Cariño*, have already established that mass actions by public school teachers, similar to the one in this case, constitute strikes. These earlier rulings underscore that when teachers abandon their classes and disrupt school operations to pressure the government on economic or other demands, they are engaging in activities that fall under the definition of a strike, regardless of whether they label it as such. The case of *Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals* further clarifies the issue of back salaries, stating that back wages are generally not awarded to suspended civil service employees unless they are exonerated of the charges or their suspension was unjustified. This principle is crucial in understanding why the teachers in this case were ultimately denied back pay.

CASE BREAKDOWN: FROM MASS ACTION TO SUPREME COURT RULING

In September 1990, numerous public school teachers in Metro Manila participated in what they termed a “mass action.” This action involved them absenting themselves from their duties, effectively disrupting classes across various public schools. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), now the Department of Education (DepEd), viewed this as an illegal strike. Then DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño issued a “Return to Work Order,” directing the teachers to resume their duties within 24 hours or face dismissal proceedings. The teachers ignored this order.

Consequently, the DECS filed administrative complaints against a massive number of teachers – the respondents in this case – charging them with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of Civil Service Law, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to public interest, and absence without leave. The teachers were given five days to respond to these charges and were offered the option of a formal investigation and legal counsel. However, they failed to answer the charges.

Investigation committees were formed, and school principals were called to testify. Secretary Cariño then issued decisions finding the teachers guilty and dismissing them from service, effective immediately. The Merit and System Protection Board (MSPB) affirmed these dismissals. On appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the CSC softened the penalty, finding the teachers guilty only of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” and imposing a six-month suspension without pay. Notably, the CSC ordered the automatic reinstatement of the teachers, given the time they had already been out of service, but without back salaries.

Dissatisfied, the teachers elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the CSC’s resolutions but modified them by granting back salaries to the teachers for the period they were prevented from teaching, except for the six-month suspension period. This CA decision then led to two consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court: one from the DECS Secretary (G.R. No. 128559) questioning the award of back salaries, and another from the teachers (G.R. No. 130911) arguing they were merely exercising their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Purisima, sided with the DECS. The Court unequivocally stated that the mass actions were indeed strikes, citing previous rulings like *Alipat vs. Court of Appeals* and *De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals*. The Court reiterated:

ASG Law