LEONORA A. GESITE, FE LAMOSTE, ADELAIDA MACALINDOG, and GUIA C.

AGATON v. COURT OF APPEALS et al

Facts:
Petitioners are public school teachers of E. delos Santos Elementary School. On
September 1990, during a regular school day, about 800 of the teachers in Metro
Manila assembled in front of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS)
Office airing their grievances due to the unrest amontht eh ranks in public school
teachers and they demand payment for their allowances, 13 th month pay, and to redress
the oversizing of classes and overloading of teachers.
The DECS Secretary however, ignored their complaints and ordered that they should
return to work within 24 hours, otherwise it will cause dismissal of their service. With
this, more teachers were engaged to join the protest which included the petitioners, as
they did not report to work on September 19-21, 1990. Administrative complaints were
filed against them charging them grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross
violation of the Civil Service Law and Regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross
insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence
without official leave, for ignoring the Secretary’s return-to-work order.
Their appeal was denied by Merit System Protection Board and later by the Civil
Service Commission, finding the petitioners liable for “conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of service” on the ground that “acted without due regard to the adverse
consequences of their action which necessarily resulted in the suspension and
stoppage of classes, to the prejudice of the pupils/students to whom they were
responsible.”

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are liable for their participation in the assembly.

Ruling:
YES. The reason for the Court to find them liable is not their participation in the said
assembled strike, but their unauthorized absences that disrupted classes and
prejudiced the welfare of the school children, as the Court recognizes their right to
assemble, but should’ve done it in lawful manner.
Said absences caused adversed effects to their students and is prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, which is an offense punishable under Executive Order 292
(Administrative Code of 1987). In ruling their grievance for their salaries, the Court ruled
using the case of Bangalisan vs Court of Appeals:
“The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he
has not rendered any service. As he works, he shall earn. Since petitioners did not work
during the period for which they are now claiming salaries, there can be no legal or
equitable basis to order the payment of such salaries”

The petition is DENIED.