Espuelas vs People

G.R. No. L-2990

December 17, 1951
Facts
!" #u"e 9 a"$ #u"e 2%, 19%7, bot& $ates '"clus've, '" t&e to(" o) *a+b'lara", ,o&ol, !scar
Espuelas - .e"$o/a &a$ &'s p'cture ta0e", ma0'"+ 't to appear as ') &e (ere &a"+'"+ l')eless at
t&e e"$ o) a p'ece o) rope suspe"$e$ )orm t&e l'mb o) t&e tree, (&e" '" trut& a"$ '" )act, &e (as
merel- sta"$'"+ o" a barrel. 1)ter secur'"+ cop'es o) &'s p&oto+rap&, Espuelas se"t cop'es o)
same to Free Press, t&e Eve"'"+ Ne(s, t&e ,'sa-as, Lam$a"+ o) +e"eral c'rculat'o" a"$ ot&er
local per'o$'cals '" t&e Prov'"ce o) ,o&ol but also t&rou+&out t&e P&'l'pp'"es a"$ abroa$, )or
t&e'r publ'cat'o" ('t& a su'c'$e "ote or letter, (&ere'" &e ma$e to appear t&at 't (as (r'tte" b- a
)'ct't'ous su'c'$e, 1lberto Reve"'era a"$ a$$resse$ to t&e latter2s suppose$ (')e tra"slat'o" o)
(&'c& letter or "ote, stat'"+ &'s $'sma- a"$ a$m'"'strat'o" o) Pres'$e"t Ro3as, po'"t'"+ out t&e
s'tuat'o" '" 4e"tral Lu/o" a"$ Le-te, a"$ $'rect'"+ &'s (')e &'s $ear (')e to (r'te to Pres'$e"t
*ruma" a"$ 4&urc&'ll o) 56 a"$ tell t&em t&at '" t&e P&'l'pp'"es t&e +over"me"t 's '")este$ ('t&
ma"- 7'tlers a"$ .ussol'"'s.
8ssue
9&et&er t&e accuse$ 's l'able o) se$'t'ous l'bel u"$er 1rt. 1%2 o) t&e RP4 a+a'"st t&e
Gover"me"t o) t&e P&'l'pp'"es:
7el$
;es. *&e accuse$ must t&ere)ore be )ou"$ +u'lt- as c&ar+e$. 1"$ t&ere be'"+ "o <uest'o" as to
t&e le+al't- o) t&e pe"alt- 'mpose$ o" &'m, t&e $ec's'o" ('ll be a))'rme$ ('t& costs.
1"al-/e$ )or mea"'"+ a"$ (e'+&e$ '" 'ts co"se<ue"ces, t&e art'cle (r'tte" b-bt&e accuse$,
ca""ot )a'l to 'mpress t&'"0'"+ perso"s t&at 't see0s to so( t&e see$s o) se$'t'o" a"$ str')e. *&e
'")ur'at'"+ la"+ua+e 's "ot a s'"cere e))ort to persua$e, (&at ('t& t&e (r'ter2s s'mulate$ su'c'$e
a"$ )alse cla'm to mart-r$om a"$ (&at ('t& 's )a'lure to part'cular'/e. 9&e" t&e use 'rr'tat'"+
la"+ua+e ce"ters "ot o" persua$'"+ t&e rea$ers but o" creat'"+ $'sturba"ces, t&e rat'o"able o)
)ree speec& ca""ot appl- a"$ t&e spea0er or (r'ter 's remove$ )rom t&e protect'o" o) t&e
co"st'tut'o"al +uara"t-.
8) 't be ar+ue$ t&at t&e art'cle $oes "ot $'scre$'t t&e e"t're +over"me"tal structure but o"l-
Pres'$e"t Ro3as a"$ &'s me", t&e repl- 's t&at art'cle 1%2 pu"'s&es "ot o"l- all l'bels a+a'"st t&e
Gover"me"t but also =l'bels a+a'"st a"- o) t&e $ul- co"st'tute$ aut&or't'es t&ereo).= *&e =Ro3as
people= '" t&e Gover"me"t obv'ousl- re)er o) least to t&e Pres'$e"t, &'s 4ab'"et a"$ t&e ma>or't-
o) le+'slators to (&om t&e a$>ect'ves $'rt-, 7'tlers a"$ .ussol'"'s (ere "aturall- $'recte$. !"
t&'s score alo"e t&e co"v'ct'o" coul$ be up&el$.
Re+ar$'"+ t&e publ'cat'o", 't su++ests or '"c'tes rebell'ous co"sp'rac'es or r'ots a"$ te"$s to st'r
up people a+a'"st t&e co"st'tute$ aut&or't'es, or to provo0e v'ole"ce )rom oppos't'o" (&o ma-
see0 to s'le"ce t&e (r'ter. 9&'c& 's t&e sum a"$ substa"ce o) t&e o))e"se u"$er co"s'$erat'o".
*&e esse"ce o) se$'t'ous l'bel ma- be sa'$ to 'ts 'mme$'ate te"$e"c- to st'r up +e"eral
$'sco"te"t to t&e p'tc& o) 'lle+al courses? t&at 's to sa- to '"$uce people to resort to 'lle+al
met&o$s ot&er t&a" t&ose prov'$e$ b- t&e 4o"st'tut'o", '" or$er to repress t&e ev'ls (&'c& press
upo" t&e'r m'"$s.
A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC July 29, 2002
IN RE: PUBLISHED ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST MEMBERS ! THE CURT IN
THE PLUNDER LA" CASE HURLED B# ATT#. LENARD DE $ERA
%APUNAN, J.:
On December 11, 2001, the court En Banc issued the following Resolution directing respondent
Atty. Leonard De era to e!plain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for
uttering some allegedly contemptuous statements in relation to the case in"ol"ing the
constitutionality of the #lunder Law $Republic Act %o. &0'0(
1
which was then pending
resolution)
*uoted hereunder are newspaper articles with contemptuous statements attributed to
Atty. Leonard De era concerning the #lunder Law case while the same was still
pending before the +ourt. ,he statements are italici-ed for ready identification)
PHILIPPINE DAIL# IN&UIRER
,uesday, %o"ember ., 2001
E'() *(+) ,l(+-. /o' ou01-B(.oy +(2-u3-'0
#lunder Law
De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a
petition filed by Estradas lawyers to declare the plunder law unconstitutional for
its supposed vagueness.
De era said he and his group were /greatly disturbed/ by the rumors from
0upreme +ourt insiders.
Reports said that 0upreme +ourt 1ustices were tied .2. o"er the constitutionality
of the #lunder Law, with two other 1ustices still undecided and uttered most li3ely
to inhibit, said #lunder 4atch, a coalition formed by ci"il society and militant
groups to monitor the prosecution of 5strada.
/4e are afraid that the 5strada camp6s effort to coerce, bribe, or influence the
1ustices 222considering that it has a #700 million slush fund from the aborted
power grab that 8ay2will most li3ely result in pro25strada decision declaring the
#lunder Law either unconstitutional or "ague, / the group said.
PHILIPPINE DAIL# IN&UIRER
8onday, %o"ember 19, 2001
SC u2.-' )'-00u'- /'o+ E'() )(l0, /o-0
!!!
/#eople are getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged./ 0aid lawyer
Leonard de era of the 5:ual ;ustice for All 8o"ement and a leading member of
the 5strada Resign mo"ement.
e voiced his concern that a decision by the high tribunal rendering the plunder
law unconstitutional would trigger mass actions! probably more massive than
those that led to "eople "ower ##.
!!!
De era warned of a crisis far worse than the /1ueteng/ scandal that led to #eople
#ower << if the rumor turned out to be true.
$"eople wouldnt %ust swallow any Supreme Court decision that is basically
wrong. Sovereignty must prevail.$
4=5R5>OR5, the court resol"ed to direct Atty. Leonard De era to e!plain within a
non2e!tendible period of ten $10( days from notice why he should not be punished for
contempt of court.
0O ORD5R5D.
2
<n his Answer, respondent admitted the report in the %o"ember ., 2002 issue of the #n&uirer that
he /suggested that the +ourt must ta3e steps to dispel once and for all these ugly rumors and
reports/ that /the +ourt would "ote in fa"or of or against the "alidity of the #lunder Law/ to
protect the credibility of the +ourt.
?
=e e!plained therein)
$@( <n short, the integrity of the +ourt, including the names of the =onorable 8embers
who were being unfairly dragged and maliciously rumored to be in fa"or or against one
side of the issue, was being "iciously attac3ed. ,o remain silent at this time when the
=onorable +ourt was under siege by what appeared to be an organi-ed effort to influence
the court in their decision would and could lend credence to these reports coming from
anonymous sources.
@
Respondent admitted further to /ha"ing appealed to the 0upreme +ourt to dispel rumors that it
would "ote in fa"or of a petition by Aformer #resident ;osephB 5strada6s lawyers to declare the
plunder AlawB unconstitutional for its supposed "agueness/ because he and his group were
/greatly disturbed/ by such rumors.
7
Anent the %o"ember 19, 2001 report in the #n&uirer :uoting respondent as ha"ing said that the
people were /getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged,/ pending the court6s
resolution on the petition filed by former #resident 5strada assailing the "alidity of the #lunder
Law, respondent claimed that such statement was /factually accurate./
.
=e also argued that he
was merely e!ercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech when he said
that a decision by the +ourt declaring the #lunder Law unconstitutional /would trigger mass
actions, probably more massi"e than those that led to #eople #ower <<./
&
>urthermore, respondent 1ustified his statement and said that /the people wouldn6t 1ust swallow
any 0upreme +ourt decision that is basically wrong/ as an e!pression of his opinion and as
/historically correct,/ citing the ouster of former #resident >erdinand 5. 8arcos through people
power in 19'., and the resignation of former #resident 5strada from office as a result of pressure
from the people who gathered at 5D0A to demand the impeachment process be stopped for
being a farce, and that 5strada step down because he no longer had the mandate of the >ilipino
people.
'
4hile he admitted to ha"ing uttered the aforecited statements, respondent denied ha"ing made
the same to degrade the +ourt, to destroy public confidence in it and to bring it into disrepute.
9
After a careful consideration of respondent6s arguments, the +ourt finds his e!planation
unsatisfactory and hereby finds him guilty of indirect contempt of court for uttering statements
aimed at influencing and threatening the +ourt in deciding in fa"or of the constitutionality of the
#lunder Law.
,he 1udiciary, as the branch of go"ernment tas3ed to administer 1ustice, to settle 1usticiable
contro"ersies or disputes in"ol"ing enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of
wrongs for the "iolation of said rights
10
must be allowed to decide cases independently, free of
outside influence or pressure. An independent 1udiciary is essential to the maintenance of
democracy, as well as of peace and order in society. >urther, maintaining the dignity of courts
and enforcing the duty of citi-ens to respect them are necessary ad1uncts to the administration of
1ustice.
11
,hus, Rule &1, 0ection ? $d( of the Re"ised Rules of +ourt authori-es the courts to hold liable for
criminal contempt a person guilty of conduct that is directed against the dignity or authority of
the court, or of an act obstructing the administration of 1ustice which tends to bring the court into
disrepute or disrespect.
12
Respondent cannot 1ustify his contemptuous statements22as3ing the +ourt to dispel rumors that it
would declare the #lunder Law unconstitutional, and stating that a decision declaring it as such
was basically wrong and would not be accepted by the peopleCas utterances protected by his
right to freedom of speech.
<ndeed, freedom of speech includes the right to 3now and discuss 1udicial proceedings, but such
right does not co"er statements aimed at undermining the +ourt6s integrity and authority, and
interfering with the administration of 1ustice. >reedom of speech is not absolute, and must
occasionally be balanced with the re:uirements of e:ually important public interests, such as the
maintenance of the integrity of the courts and orderly functioning of the administration of
1ustice.
1?
,hus, the ma3ing of contemptuous statements directed against the +ourt is not an e!ercise of free
speechD rather, it is an abuse of such right. Enwarranted attac3s on the dignity of the courts
cannot be disguised as free speech, for the e!ercise of said right cannot be used to impair the
independence and efficiency of courts or public respect therefor and confidence therein.
1@
<t is a
traditional con"iction of ci"ili-ed society e"erywhere that courts should be immune from e"ery
e!traneous influence as they resol"e the issues presented before them.
17
,he court has pre"iously
held that22
!!! As important as the maintenance of an unmu--led press and the free e!ercise of the
right of the citi-en, is the maintenance of the independence of the 1udiciary. !!! ,his
+ourt must be permitted to proceed with the disposition of its business in an orderly
manner free from outside interference obstructi"e of its constitutional functions. ,his
right will be insisted upon as "ital to an impartial court, and, as a last resort, as an
indi"idual e!ercises the right of self2defense, it will act to preser"e its e!istence as an
unpre1udiced tribunal.
1.
<n "eople vs. 'odoy,
1&
this +ourt e!plained that while a citi-en may comment upon the
proceedings and decisions of the court and discuss their correctness, and e"en e!press his
opinions on the fitness or unfitness of the 1udges for their stations, and the fidelity with which
they perform the important public trusts reposed in them, he has no right to attempt to degrade
the court, destroy public confidence in it, and encourage the people to disregard and set naught
its orders, 1udgments and decrees. 0uch publications are said to be an abuse of the liberty of
speech and of the press, for they tend to destroy the "ery foundation of good order and well2
being in society by obstructing the course of 1ustice.
1'
+learly, respondent6s utterances pressuring the +ourt to rule in fa"or of the constitutionality of
the #lunder Law or ris3 another series of mass actions by the public cannot be construed as
falling within the ambit of constitutionally2protected speech, because such statements are not fair
criticisms of any decision of the +ourt, but ob"iously are threats made against it to force the
+ourt to decide the issue in a particular manner, or ris3 earning the ire of the public. 0uch
statements show disrespect not only for the +ourt but also for the 1udicial system as a whole,
tend to promote distrust and undermine public confidence in the 1udiciary, by creating the
impression that the +ourt cannot be trusted to resol"e cases impartially and "iolate the right of
the parties to ha"e their case tried fairly by an independent tribunal, uninfluenced by public
clamor and other e!traneous influences.
19
<t is respondent6s duty as an officer of the court, to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts
and to promote confidence in the fair administration of 1ustice
20
and in the 0upreme +ourt as the
last bulwar3 of 1ustice and democracy. Respondent6s utterances as :uoted abo"e, while the case
of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan was pending consideration by this +ourt, belies his protestation of
good faith but were clearly made to mobili-e public opinion and bring pressure on the +ourt.
"HERE!RE, Atty. Leonard De era is found GUILT# of indirect contempt of court and is
hereby !INED in the amount of ,wenty ,housand #esos $#20,000.00( to be paid within ten $10(
days from receipt of this Decision.
P41( 3. CA, 1&' 0+RA ?.2 $19'9(
>) #ursuant to the Anti20mut +ampaign of 8ayor Ramon Fagatsng, policemen sei-ed and
confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along 8anila sidewal3s,
maga-ines, publications and other reading materials belie"ed to be obscene, pornographic, and
indecent and later burned the sei-ed materials in public. Among the publications sei-ed and later
burned was /#inoy #layboy/ maga-ines published and co2edited by plaintiff Leo #ita. After his
in1uncti"e relief was dismissed by the R,+ and his appeal re1ected by +A, he see3s re"iew with
0+, in"o3ing the guaranty against unreasonable searches and sei-ure. <ssue) 4G% the search and
sei-ure was illegal =5LD) H50. <t is basic that searches and sei-ure may be done only through a
1udicial warrant , otherwise, they become unreasonable and sub1ect to challenge. <n Furgos "
+hief of 0taff $1?? 0+RA '00( , the 0+ countermanded the orders of the R,+ authori-ing the
serach of the premises 45 >orum and 8etropolitan 8ail, two 8etro 8anila Dailies, by reason
of a defecti"e warrant.
,here is a greater reason in this case to reprobate the :uestioned raid, in the complete absence of
a warrant, "alid or in"alid. ,he fact that the instant case in"ol"es an obscenity rap ma3es it no
different from Furgos, a political case, because speech is speech, whether political or /obscene/.
,he authorities must apply for the issuance of the a search warrant from the 1udge , if in their
opinion, an obscenity rap is in order. ,hey must con"ince the court that the materials sought to
be sei-ed are /obscene/ and pose a clear and present danger of an e"il substanti"e enough to
warrant 0tate interference and action. ,he 1udge must determine 4O% the same are indeed
/obscene/) the :uestion is to be resol"ed on a case2to2case basis and on the 1udgeIs sound
discretion. <f probable cause e!ist, a search warrant will issue.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the
Decision
1
[1] dated August 29, 1997 and Resolution
2
[2] dated anuar! 7, 199" of
the #ourt of Appeals in #A$%&R& '( )o& *9"7", affir+ing the Resolutions
*
[*] of
respondent #ivil 'ervice #o++ission ,#'#- finding petitioners guilt! of conduct
pre.udicial to the service and i+posing a penalt! of si/$,0- +onths suspension
without pa!&
(etitioners are teachers fro+ different pu1lic schools in 2etro 2anila& 3n various
dates in 'epte+1er and 3cto1er 1994, petitioners did not report for work and
instead, participated in +ass actions 1! pu1lic school teachers at the 5iwasang
Bonifacio for the purpose of petitioning the govern+ent for redress of their
grievances&
3n the 1asis of reports su1+itted 1! their respective school principals that petitioners
participated in said +ass actions and refused to co+pl! with the return$to$work order
issued on 'epte+1er 17, 1994 1! then 'ecretar! 6sidro D& #ari7o of the Depart+ent of
8ducation, #ulture and 'ports ,D8#'-, petitioners were ad+inistrativel! charged with
such offenses as grave +isconduct, gross neglect of dut!, gross violation of civil service
law, rules and regulations and reasona1le office regulations, refusal to perfor+ official
dut!, gross insu1ordination, conduct pre.udicial to the 1est interest of the service and
a1sence without official leave& (etitioners failed to answer these charges& 9ollowing the
investigations conducted 1! the D8#' 6nvestigating #o++ittees, 'ecretar! #ari7o
found petitioners guilt! as charged and ordered their i++ediate dis+issal fro+ the
service&
:
[:]
1
2
@
%
(etitioners appealed the orders of 'ecretar! #ari7o to the 2erit '!ste+s
(rotection Board ,2'(B- and later to the #'#& 6n 199;, the #'# +odified the
said orders of 'ecretar! #ari7o as follows<
=>8R893R8, the #o++ission here1! finds 8verdina Acosta guilt! of
#onduct (re.udicial to the Best 6nterest of the 'ervice& 'he is here1!
+eted out the penalt! of si/ ,0- +onths suspension without pa!&
#onsidering the period of ti+e she was out of service, she is auto+aticall!
reinstated to her for+er positions ,sic-&
;
[;]
9ollowing the denial of their +otion for reconsideration, petitioners ?uestioned
the +atter 1efore the #ourt of Appeals& @he appellate court denied their petition
for certiorari and su1se?uent +otion for reconsideration& >ence, this petition&
(etitioners su1+it the following issues for our consideration<
R8'(3)D8)@ #3AR@ 39 A((8A5' %R68B3A'5C 8RR8D =>8) 6@
A996R28D @>8 A''A658D R8'35A@63)' 39 @>8 #6B65 '8RB6#8
#3226''63) @>A@ =R3)%5C (8)A56D8D (8@6@63)8R' =>3'8
3)5C E3998)'8E =A' @3 8F8R#6'8 @>86R #3)'6@A@63)A5
R6%>@ @3 (8A#8AB5C A''82B58 A)D (8@6@63) @>8
%3B8R)28)@ 93R R8DR8'' 39 %R68BA)#8'&
R8'(3)D8)@ #3CR@ 39 A((8A5' %R68B3A'5C 8RR8D =>8) 6@
A996R28D @>8 A''A658D R8'35A@63)' 39 @>8 #6B65 '8RB6#8
#3226''63) @>A@ =R3)%5C D8)68D (8@6@63)8R' @>86R R6%>@
@3 BA#G=A%8'&
@his petition is not i+pressed with +erit&
(etitioners do not den! their a1sence fro+ work nor the fact that said a1sences
were due to their participation in the +ass actions at the 5iwasang Bonifacio&
>owever, the! contend that their participation in the +ass actions was an
e/ercise of their constitutional rights to peacea1l! asse+1le and petition the
govern+ent for redress of grievances& (etitioners likewise +aintain that the!
never went on strike 1ecause the! never sought to secure changes or
+odification of the ter+s and conditions of their e+plo!+ent&
(etitionersH contentions are without +erit& @he character and legalit! of the +ass
actions which the! participated in have 1een passed upon 1! this #ourt as earl!
as 1994 in Manila Public School Teachers' Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio, Jr.
0
[0]
5
A
wherein we ruled that Ethese H+ass actionsH were to all intents and purposes a
strikeI the! constituted a concerted and unauthoriJed stoppage of, or a1sence
fro+, work which it was the teachersH sworn dut! to perfor+, undertaken for
essentiall! econo+ic reasons&E
7
[7] 6n Bangalisan v& #ourt of Appeals,
"
["] we added
that<
6t is an undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that
petitionersH purpose was to realiJe their de+ands 1! withholding their
services& @he fact that the conventional ter+ EstrikeE was not used 1! the
striking e+plo!ees to descri1e their co++on course of action is
inconse?uential, since the su1stance of the situation, and not its
appearance, will 1e dee+ed to 1e controlling&
@he a1ilit! to strike is not essential to the right of association& 6n the
a1sence of statute, pu1lic e+plo!ees do not have the right to engage in
concerted work stoppages for an! purpose&
9urther, herein petitioners, e/cept 2ariano, are 1eing penaliJed not
1ecause the! e/ercised their right of peacea1le asse+1l! and petition for
redress of grievances 1ut 1ecause of their successive unauthoriJed and
unilateral a1sences which produced adverse effects upon their students
for whose education the! are responsi1le& @he actuations of petitioners
definitel! constituted conduct pre.udicial to the 1est interest of the service,
punisha1le under the #ivil 'ervice law, rules and regulations&
As aptl! stated 1! the 'olicitor %eneral, E6t is not the e/ercise 1! the
petitioners of their constitutional right to peacea1l! asse+1le that was
punished, 1ut the +anner in which the! e/ercised such right which
resulted in the te+porar! stoppage or disruption of pu1lic service and
classes in various pu1lic schools in 2etro 2anila& 9or, indeed, there are
efficient and non$disruptive avenues, other than the +ass actions in
?uestion, where1! petitioners could petition the govern+ent for redress of
grievances&E
6t 1ears stressing that suspension of pu1lic services, however te+porar!,
will inevita1l! derail services to the pu1lic, which is one of the reasons wh!
the right to strike is denied govern+ent e+plo!ees& 6t +a! 1e conceded
that the petitioners had valid grievances and no1le intentions in staging
7
B
the E+ass actions,E 1ut that will not .ustif! their a1sences to the pre.udice
of innocent school children& @heir righteous indignation does not legaliJe
an illegal work stoppage&
9
[9]
6n acinto v& #ourt of Appeals,
14
[14] De la #ruJ v& #ourt of Appeals,
11
[11] and Alipat
v& #ourt of Appeals,
12
[12] we upheld our rulings in 2('@A and Bangalisan.
#onsidering the factual circu+stances of this case and the doctrine of stare
decisis to which we consistentl! adhere, we find no co+pelling reason to deviate
fro+ our earlier rulings in these related cases&
Anent the second issue, petitioners invoke our state+ent in Bangalisan that
pa!+ent of salaries corresponding to the period when an e+plo!ee is not
allowed to work +a! 1e decreed if he is found innocent of the charges which
caused his suspension and if his suspension is un.ustified& (etitioners cite #'#
Resolution )o& 9*$102 and contend that the deter+ination of the #'# therein
that not an iota of evidence was given to su1stantiate the conclusion that the!
participated in a EteacherHs strikeE a+ounted to a finding that the! were innocent
of the charges filed against the+&
As a general proposition, a pu1lic official is not entitled to an! co+pensation if he
has not rendered an! service&
1*
[1*] =hile there are recogniJed instances when
1ackwages +a! 1e awarded to a suspended or dis+issed pu1lic official who is
later ordered reinstated, as pointed 1! petitioners in citing Bangalisan, the factual
circu+stances of the case at 1ar i+pel us to rule otherwise&
(etitionersH reliance on #'# Resolution )o& 9*$102 is +isplaced& 'aid #'#
resolution disposed of the appeals of 9el! 6larina, Adelaida Dela #ruJ, Alicia
%alvo, )enita Al1ios and )erissa A1ellanda& (etitioners were never parties to
their appeals and, therefore, cannot cite #'# Resolution )o& 9*$102 in support
9
10
11
12
1@
of their contention& (etitioners also overlook the fact that although no evidence
was presented to prove that 6larina, et al. participated in the +ass actions, the
#'# e/plained that the deficienc! was cured 1! their ad+issions during the
hearings 1efore the 2'(B&
1:
[1:] 2ore i+portantl!, however, herein petitionersH
clai+ of e/oneration is 1elied 1! the deter+ination of the #'# that their
participation in the +ass actions constituted conduct pre.udicial to the service&
Being found lia1le for a lesser offense is not e?uivalent to e/oneration&
1;
[1;]
(etitioners also point out that fro+ the issuance of the orders of dis+issal 1!
'ecretar! #ari7o to the +odification thereof 1! the #'#, al+ost five ,;- !ears
elapsed& (etitioners argue that the period in e/cess of their preventive
suspension and penalt! of si/ ,0- +onths suspension a+ounted to un.ustified
suspension for which an award of 1ackwages was proper pursuant to our rulings
in Bautista v. Peralta
10
[10] and Abellera v. City o Baguio&
17
[17]
=e disagree& 6t will 1e recalled that in Jacinto, we upheld the legalit! of the
i++ediate e/ecution of the dis+issal orders issued 1! 'ecretar! #ari7o on the
ground that under 'ection :7,2-,
1"
[1"] 'u1title A, @itle 6, Book B of 8/ecutive 3rder
)o& 292, otherwise known as the Ad+inistrative #ode of 19"7, the decision of a
depart+ent secretar! confir+ing the dis+issal of an e+plo!ee under his
.urisdiction is e/ecutor! even pending appeal thereof&
19
[19] 'ince dis+issal orders
re+ain valid and effective until +odified or set aside, the intervening period
during which an e+plo!ee is not per+itted to work cannot 1e argued as
1%
15
1A
17
1B
19
a+ounting to un.ustified suspension& 6n %loria v& #ourt of Appeals,
24
[24] we further
e/plained that<
(reventive suspension pending investigation, as alread! discussed, is not
a penalt! 1ut onl! a +eans of ena1ling the disciplining authorit! to conduct
an unha+pered investigation& 3n the other hand, preventive suspension
pending appeal is actuall! punitive although it is in effect su1se?uentl!
considered illegal if respondent is e/onerated and the ad+inistrative
decision finding hi+ guilt! is reversed& >ence, he should 1e reinstated
with full pa! for the period of the suspension& @hus, K:7,:- states that
respondent Eshall 1e considered as under preventive suspension during
the pendenc! of the appeal in the event he wins&E 3n the other hand, if his
conviction is affir+ed, i&e& if he is not e/onerated, the period of his
suspension 1eco+es part of the final penalt! of suspension or dis+issal&
21
[21]
(etitionersH reliance on 9a1ella v& #ourt of Appeals
22
[22] is likewise unavailing& 6n
that case, the petitioners therein i++ediatel! went to court to seek in.unctive
relief against the D8#' ad+inistrative proceedings on the ground that the! were
deprived of due process& @he trial court declared the ad+inistrative proceedings
void and ordered the pa!+ent of 1ackwages to the petitioners therein& @he #ourt
of Appeals then upheld the order of the trial court& 6n affir+ing 1oth the trial court
and the #ourt of Appeals, we stated therein that<
/ / / Because the ad+inistrative proceedings involved in this case are
void, no delin?uenc! or +isconduct +a! 1e i+puted to private
respondents& 2oreover, the suspension or dis+issal +eted on the+ is
1aseless& (rivate respondents should, as a conse?uence, 1e reinstated
and awarded all +onetar! 1enefits that +a! have accrued to the+ during
the period of their un.ustified suspension or dis+issal& / / /
2*
[2*]
3n the other hand, in the case at 1ar, petitioners initiall! assailed the alleged
non$o1servance of due process 1! the D8#' 6nvestigating #o++ittees onl!
20
21
22
2@
upon appeal to the 2'(B& 'ignificantl!, however, it has 1een our consistent
ruling that an appeal is curative of an! supposed denial of due process&
2:
[2:] @hus,
after full ventilation of their case 1efore the 2'(B and #'#, and later on 1efore
the #ourt of Appeals, petitioners cannot now allege denial of due process to
.ustif! their clai+ for 1ackwages&
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is !"#$"!.
2%