Manila Public School Teachers [POLIREV] Art. III, Sec.

8 – Right to
60 Association v. Laguio form association
G.R. No. 95445 August 6, 1991 J. Narvasa Therese
Petitioners: Respondents:
MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS THE HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR., in his capacity
ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher- Manila, Branch 18, HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO, in his
members so numerous similarly situated, petitioners- capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports
appellants and the HON. ERLINDA LOLARGA in her capacity as
Manila City Schools Superintendent
Recit Ready Summary

The petitioners engaged in mass concerted actions within the premises of DECS after peaceful
dialogues with key stakeholders. They were pushing for matters such as the immediate payment of due
chalk, clothing allowances, 13th month pay, the implementation of the Salary Standardization Law, and
the recall of a DECS order which directed the oversizing and overloading of teachers. Subsequently,
the petitioners participated and organized another concerted action. This resulted in around 800
teachers failing to conduct their classes. The Secretary of Education brushed aside their grievances
and told them they they would lose their jobs for going on illegal and unauthorized mass leave. The
petitioners were handed an order directing all participants in the mass action to return to work in 24hrs
or face dismissal. However, despite these directives, the mass actions continued. The Secretary of
Education filed motu proprio administrative complaints against the teachers who had taken part of the
concerted actions. He found twenty teachers guilty of the charges preferred against them and
dismissed them from office. In the other investigations that followed 658 teachers were dismissed, 40
were suspended for one (1) year, 33 for nine (9) months, and 122 for six (6) months; 398 were
exonerated. The RTC ruled in favor of the validity of the Secretary’s orders.

I: W/N the petitioners have the right to strike - NO

Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the right to strike,
although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the betterment of
employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the
improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law. As such, considering that a strike was
organized and participated in by 800 teachers and that the same constituted unauthorized stoppage of,
or absence from work, it was prima facie lawful and within the statutory authority of the Secretary of
Education to issue a return to work order, institute administrative charges against the petitioners, and
place under preventive suspension those who failed to comply with the said order, and dismiss from
the service those who failed to answer or controvert the charges .

Facts

1. The petitioners engaged in mass concerted actions in the premises of DECS after peaceful
dialogues with the heads of the Department of the Budget and Management, Senate and House
of Representatives in public hearings, as well as exhausting all administrative remedies. The
petitioners wanted to press matters such as the immediate payment of due chalk, clothing
allowances, 13th month pay, the implementation of the Salary Standardization Law, and the recall
of a DECS order which directed the oversizing and overloading of teachers. The protest and rally
staged did not disrupt classes.
2. 3 days after the aforementioned concerted action, another mass action was held were around 800
teachers did not conduct their class. Instead, they joined a whole-day assembly at the DECS
premises. The Secretary of Education brushed aside their grievances and told them they they
would lose their jobs for going on illegal and unauthorized mass leave. The petitioners were
handed an order directing all participants in the mass action to return to work in 24hrs or face
dismissal.
3. Those directives notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the week, with more teachers

ALS B2021 1
 joining in the days that followed. In its issue of September 19, 1990, the newspaper Manila
Standard reported that the day previous, the respondent Secretary of Education had relieved 292
teachers who did not return to their classes. The next day, however, another daily, Newsday,
reported that the Secretary had revoked its dismissal order and instead placed 56 of the 292
teachers under preventive suspension, despite which the protesters' numbers had swelled to
4,000.
4. On the record, what did happen was that, based on reports submitted by the principals of the
various public schools in Metro Manila, the respondent Secretary of Education had filed motu
proprio administrative complaints against the teachers who had taken part in the mass actions and
defied the return-to-work order on assorted charges like grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty,
gross violation of the Civil Service Law, absence without official leave, etc., and placed them
under 90-day preventive suspension.  The respondent Secretary constituted an investigating
committee of four (4) to determine and take the appropriate course of action on the formal charges
and designated the special prosecutors on detail with the DECS to handle their prosecution during
the formal hearings.
5. In Case No. DECS 90-002, he found twenty teachers guilty of the charges preferred against them
and dismissed them from office. In the other investigations that followed 658 teachers were
dismissed, 40 were suspended for one (1) year, 33 for nine (9) months, and 122 for six (6)
months; 398 were exonerated.
6. Petitioners filed before the RTC a petition for prohibition, declaratory relief, and preliminary
mandatory injunction. The RTC declared that the assailed return-to-work order was valid and
binding, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
Issues Ruling
W/N the petitioners have the right to strike No
Rationale

The petitioners do not have the right to strike

- Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the right
to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the
betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government
agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law
- As such, considering that a strike was organized and participated in by 800 teachers and that
the same constituted unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from work, it was prima facie lawful
and within the statutory authority of the Secretary of Education to issue a return to work order,
institute administrative charges against the petitioners, and place under preventive suspension
those who failed to comply with the said order, and dismiss from the service those who failed to
answer or controvert the charges

The court did not rule on the issue of due process due to contradicting factual claims of the parties
- It is not for the Court, which is not a trier of facts, as the petitioners who would now withdraw
correctly put it, to make the crucial determination of what in truth transpired concerning the
disputed incidents.
- At any rate, the petitioners cannot-as it seems they have done lump together into what
amounts to a class action hundreds of individual cases, each with its own peculiar set of facts,
and expect a ruling that would justly and correctly resolve each and everyone of those cases
upon little more than general allegations, frontally disputed as already pointed out, of incidents
supposedly "representative" of each case or group of cases.
- This case illustrates the error of precipitate recourse to the Supreme Court, especially when
numerous parties desparately situated as far as the facts are concerned gather under the
umbrella of a common plea, and generalization of what should be alleged with particularity
becomes unavoidable.
- The petitioners' obvious remedy was NOT to halt the administrative proceedings but, on the
contrary, to take part, assert and vindicate their rights therein, see those proceedings through
to judgment and if adjudged guilty, appeal to the Civil Service Commission; or if, pending said
proceedings, immediate recourse to judicial authority was believed necessary because the

ALS B2021 2
 respondent Secretary or those acting under him or on his instructions were acting without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, to apply, not directly to the Supreme
Court, but to the Regional Trial Court, where there would be an opportunity to prove the
relevant facts warranting corrective relief.
- Parties-litigant are duty bound to observe the proper order of recourse through the judicial
hierarchy; they by-pass the rungs of the judicial ladder at the peril of their own causes.

Disposition

Petition dismissed.
Separate opinions (From Ica’s digest)

Gutierrez, Jr. J

 Agrees na employees in civil service may not engage in strikes, walkouts, and temporary work stoppages like workers in the
private sectors can.
 The terms and conditions of employment in government are effected through statutes and administrative rules and regulations, not
through collective bargaining agreements.
 The concerted action was more of a peaceful assembly, an exercise of speech by gathering, not a strike. The teachers were out
there to ask lang na they receive their benefits on time! They weren’t there because they were demanding compliance for what
is more than what is stipulated in the terms and conditions between them and the government.
 He thinks what was done to the teachers was OPPRESSIVE.
 Teachers have a right to speak in an effective manner.
 For Gutierrez, da real issue is on the freedom to effectively speak. This issue outweighs the issue that the majority opinion
discussed.
 In other words, this guy is rooting for the teachers. Need to show compassion for our dakilang teachers.
 Penalty of dismissal is too oppressive! That punishment is just too cruel!

Cruz, J.

 Court must at least grant the teachers temporary relief given na ang dami nilang nagrereklao.
 I’d rather daw na the teachers be reinstated in the meantime.
 Govt workers, whatever category or status, have as much right as any person in the land to voice their protests against what they
believe to be a violation of their interests.
 the fact na they belong to CSC does not deprive them of their freedom of expression!
 He thinks na the return to work order of the DECS was merely incidental and the primary purpose was actually to break up the
demonstration and muzzle the demonstrators.
 What the Secretary of Educ did was deny the teachers the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of their
grievances.

Feliciano, J.

 prohibition on teachers to strikeis not statutory in nature but merely administrative or regulatory in character.
 Parang daw the majority opinion considered the administrative prohibition of strikes in govt sector as an absolute given. BUT this
guy says na we must take into consideration the competing public values at stake implicit in free speeach and peacable assembly
and petition.
 Parang this majority opinion didn’t take into consideration those other publc valus at stake, it just focused on the government’s
welfare.
 Coz of this, na put at stake an exercise of rights of free speech and assemly and petition.
 To require civil servants and pub school teachers to leave at home their consti rights when they go to work is just wtf! Dat shit’s
oppressive yo.

Padilla, J.

ALS B2021 3
   In majorty opinion, there has been a disregard altogether of the consti right to peacably assemble and petition govt for redress of
grievances.
 Clearly daw, the actions taken against the teachers were mainly because of their act of airing their grievances against the
government. Retaliation yung ginawa ng government.
 There was undue haste in the goverment’s actions and they did not pay attention to the substance of petitioner’s arguments.
 Teachers are our unsung heroes, they deserve compassion!

Sarmiento, J.

 This guy finds it so annoying na thousands of teachers will be out of work mainly coz the SC in the majority decision can’t try
facts lol.
 Mukhang the majority daw didn’t comprehend the gravity of the situation.
 The main issue here is not whether the petitioners could have validly gone on a strike but rather, whether or not they have been
given due process as a result of investigations arising from the strike.
 What the majority decision did is TRIVIALIZE the noble profession of teaching.
 There ain’t no harm in listening to our educators!

CONCURRING OPINIONS
Paras, J.
- I concur. Public school teachers have the right to peacably assemble or redress of grievances but nOT during class hours, for then
this would be a strike, which is ILLEGAL for them”

ALS B2021 4