View full case

DELIA BANGALISAN v. CA

FACTS:

In this case, public school teachers, except for Rodolfo Mariano, engaged in "mass actions" in September 1990 to protest the alleged failure of authorities to implement laws and measures for their benefit. Despite the issuance of a Return-to-Work Order by the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), the petitioners refused to comply. As a result, they were charged with various offenses, including misconduct, neglect of duty, violation of civil service laws, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. They were placed under preventive suspension and eventually dismissed from service.

The Secretary later modified the penalty of dismissal to a nine-month suspension without pay. The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration and appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Most of their appeals were dismissed, while some were ruled on the merits. Some of the petitioners were given penalties of suspension without pay with varying durations and conditions.

Not satisfied, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the resolutions of the CSC. The petitioners argued that their actions were a lawful exercise of their right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. However, the Court held that their conduct was prejudicial to the best interest of the service and not justified by their constitutional rights.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the mass actions conducted by the petitioners justify their absences from work and their work stoppage.

  2. Whether Memorandum Circular No. 6 issued by the Civil Service Commission is unconstitutional.

  3. Whether public employees have the right to strike or engage in a work stoppage against a public employer.

  4. Whether the preventive suspension of the petitioners and the immediate execution of the decision against them are legal.

  5. Whether the petitioners were denied due process.

  6. Whether petitioners are entitled to back wages during the period of suspension.

  7. Whether payment of back wages should be granted to petitioner Rodolfo Mariano.

  8. Whether payment of back wages should be denied to the other petitioners.

RULING:

  1. The mass actions conducted by the petitioners do not justify their absences from work and their work stoppage. Suspension of public services will inevitably disrupt services to the public, and the right to strike is denied government employees.

  2. The constitutionality of Memorandum Circular No. 6 is not necessary to resolve in the present case.

  3. Public employees do not have the right to strike or engage in a work stoppage against a public employer unless there is clear and direct legislative authority allowing for it.

  4. The preventive suspension of the petitioners and the immediate execution of the decision against them are legal based on the charges of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and other violations of civil service laws and regulations.

  5. The petitioners were not denied due process as they were given the opportunity to refute the charges against them. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard or seek reconsideration of the ruling.

  6. Petitioners are not entitled to back wages during the period of suspension.

  7. Payment of back wages is granted to petitioner Rodolfo Mariano.

  8. Payment of back wages is denied to the other petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Suspension of public services, even temporarily, disrupts services to the public and is not justified by the righteous indignation of government employees. The right to strike is denied to government employees.

  • Public employees are denied the right to strike or engage in a work stoppage against a public employer, unless there is clear legislative authority allowing for it.

  • The preventive suspension of public employees is allowed when the charges against them involve dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, neglect of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant removal from the service.

  • The immediate execution of a decision against public employees is authorized when the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or a fine not exceeding thirty days' salary. Confirmation may be required for penalties of removal.

  • Due process in administrative proceedings requires an opportunity to be heard or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling.

  • Payment of back wages during the period of suspension may be decreed if the employee is found innocent of the charges which caused the suspension and if the suspension is unjustified.

  • In violations of reasonable office rules and regulations, the first offense is punishable by reprimand. Denying the petitioner back wages during suspension would be tantamount to punishing him after his exoneration.

  • An employee may be denied salary during the period of suspension if he is found guilty of the charges against him and if he had given ground for his suspension.

  • A public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service.