View full case

MERLINDA JACINTO v. CA

FACTS:

Petitioners in this case are public school teachers who participated in mass actions staged on September 17 to 21, 1990. The Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) Secretary issued a return-to-work order, but the petitioners ignored it. As a consequence, the Secretary issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against them. The petitioners were administratively charged with various offenses related to their participation in the mass actions. An investigation committee was created, but the petitioners did not file their answers or controvert the charges against them. The Secretary then found them guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal, except for two petitioners who were given a six-month suspension. The decisions were appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed the appeals. The petitioners then appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which set aside the MSPB's orders and found the petitioners guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The CSC imposed a penalty of six months suspension without pay and automatically reinstated them in the service without back salaries. The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the CSC. The petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC's resolutions. The petitioners now appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the CSC's resolutions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners' mass action was a valid exercise of their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and petition for redress of grievances.

  2. Whether the penalty imposed on Petitioner Merlinda Jacinto for alleged violation of reasonable office rules and regulations lacked basis, thus violating her right to security of tenure.

  3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to backwages for the period they were not allowed to teach due to their suspension.

RULING:

  1. Validity of Mass Action The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners' participation in the mass action was not protected under their right to peaceful assembly and redress of grievances. The mass action constituted an unauthorized work stoppage, effectively making it a strike, which is prohibited for government employees. Thus, they were rightfully penalized.

  2. Penalty on Merlinda Jacinto The Supreme Court upheld the penalty imposed on Jacinto, finding that her claim of attending classes but failing to sign in the attendance logbook was not credible. Multiple contradictory assertions weakened her defense, justifying her reprimand for violating reasonable office rules and regulations.

  3. Entitlement to Backwages The petitioners were not entitled to backwages as their suspension was justified by their participation in unauthorized mass actions. However, Petitioner Merlinda Jacinto, who was found to have committed only a procedural violation (failure to obtain approval for leave), was granted backwages from the time of her suspension until her reinstatement, not exceeding five years.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Right to Strike in Public Sector Government employees, including public school teachers, do not have the right to strike as their terms and conditions of employment are fixed by law.

  2. Exercise of Constitutional Rights While public servants have the right to peaceful assembly and petition the government, these rights must be exercised without disrupting essential public services.

  3. Preventive Suspension and Immediate Execution The disciplining authority may preventively suspend a government employee facing charges of grave misconduct or neglect of duty. Decisions involving removal are executory after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.

  4. Entitlement to Backwages Backwages are awarded only to those unjustly dismissed and subsequently reinstated or acquitted of charges against them. Being found guilty of a lesser offense does not equate to exoneration.