You are on page 1of 2

LABOR RELATIONS LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR The subject of the petitions: immediate payment of

due chalk, clothing allowances, 13th month pay for


RIGHT TO ORGANIZE 1989 arising from the implementation of the Salary
A. Constitution Standardization Law, the recall of DECS Order 39 s.
1990 directing the oversizing of classes and
Art III, SECTION 8. The right of the people, including overloading of teachers pursuant to the cost-cutting
those employed in the public and private sectors, to
measures of the government, etc.
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged. On September 14, 1990, the petitioners and other
teachers in other cities and municipalities in Metro
Art. XIII, SECTION 3. The State shall afford full Manila, staged a protest rally at the DECS premises
protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and without disrupting classes as a last call for the
unorganized, and promote full employment and government to negotiate the granting of demands. No
equality of employment opportunities for all.
response was made by the respondent Secretary of
Education, despite the demonstration, so the
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
petitioners began the ongoing protest mass actions on
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
September, 17,1990.
and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to September 17, 1990 fell on a Monday, which was also a
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a regular school day. There is no question that some 800
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
teachers who joined the mass action did not conduct
decision-making processes affecting their rights and
their classes on that day; instead, as alleged in the
benefits as may be provided by law.
petition in G.R. No. 95590, they converged at the
Liwasang Bonifacio in the morning whence they
The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the proceeded to the National Office of DECS. The mass
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling actions continued into the week despite the return to
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their work directive, with more teachers joining in the days
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial that followed.
peace.
Based on reports submitted by the principals of the
various public schools in Metro Manila, the respondent
The State shall regulate the relations between workers
and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just Secretary of Education had filed motu proprio
share in the fruits of production and the right of administrative complaints against the teachers who
enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and had taken part in the mass actions and defied the
to expansion and growth. return-to-work order on assorted charges like grave
misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of
Art. IX-B, Section 2 (5) The right to self-organization the Civil Service Law, absence without official leave,
shall not be denied to government employees. etc., and placed them under 90-day preventive
suspension.

Earlier, on September 19, 1990, the petitioners in G.R.


No. 95445 had filed with the Manila RTC a petition for
MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS v. LAGUIO – G.R. prohibition, declaratory relief and preliminary
No. 95445 mandatory injunction to restrain the implementation of
the return-to-work order of September 17, 1990 and the
FACTS:
suspension or dismissal of any teacher pursuant thereto
The series of events that touched off these cases and to declare said order null and void. RTC rendered
started with the so-called "mass action" undertaken by judgment declaring the assailed return-to-work order
valid and binding, and dismissing the petition for lack of
some 800 public school teachers, among them
merit. G.R. No. 95590 is a parallel original proceeding
members of the petitioning associations in both cases,
which was consolidated with G.R. No. 95445.
on September 17, 1990 to "dramatize and highlight" The petitioners filed an appeal to the CSC. They claim
the teachers' plight resulting from the alleged failure of that they are such parties although not individually so
the public authorities to act upon grievances that had named in the petition in said case, being among those
time and again been brought to the latter's attention. referred to in its title as "other similarly situated public
school teachers too numerous to be impleaded" CSC committed; (c) that some teachers were not
denied the petition. furnished sworn complaints, and others were
suspended without any formal charges; (d) that
teachers who attempted to return within a
ISSUE: reasonable time after notice of the return-to-work
order were not accepted back; and similar
 whether or not employees in public service
allegations.
are prohibited in conducting strikes
 These are however denied and disputed by the
 Whether or not the public school teachers public respondents, who set forth their own
were denied due process? (Section 8, Article III, version: (a) Petitioners in G.R. No. 95545 and G.R.
1987 Constitution) No. 95590 admit engaging in a strike (referred by
semantic interplay as "concerted activity" or "mass
action") directed against public respondent Cariño
HELD: beginning September 17, 1990; (b) The striking
teachers were given a period of five days to file
 Yes, The SC held that the mass actions held by the their Answers in line with Sec. 8, Rule III of Rules on
teachers shall be considered strikes because their Administrative Disciplinary Cases; (c) Many of the
main purpose was the stoppage of or absence striking teachers refused to appear at the hearings
from work. Employees in public service do not but preferred to submit their case on the basis of
have the right to strike because this constitutes a their answers.
disturbance in public service. In addition,  This Court finds that the facts regarding the denial
employment in the government is governed by law of due process would turn are still in issue, actively
and the terms and conditions of employment are controverted, hence not yet established.
affected through statutes and administrative rules  The petitioners cannot-as it seems they have done
lump together into what amounts to a class action
and regulations, not by collective bargaining
hundreds of individual cases, each with its own
agreements. In this case the teachers absented
peculiar set of facts, and expect a ruling that would
from their work in order to participate in the mass justly and correctly resolve each and everyone of
action that was happening on a Monday. those cases upon little more than general
allegations, frontally disputed as already pointed
out, of incidents supposedly "representative" of
NO. The cases are not ripe for adjudication.
each case or group of cases.
 The underlying issue here is due process; not
 This case illustrates the error of precipitate
whether the petitioners have a right to strike,
recourse to the Supreme Court, especially when
which it is clear they do not, however justifiable
numerous parties desparately situated as far as the
their reasons, nor whether or not there was in fact
facts are concerned gather under the umbrella of a
such a strike, it being equally evident from the
common plea, and generalization of what should be
pleadings that there was, and there being no
alleged with particularity becomes unavoidable.
dispute about this. What therefore, is brought
The petitioners' obvious remedy was NOT to halt
before the Court is the question of whether or not
the administrative proceedings but, on the
any rights of the petitioners under the due process
contrary, to take part, assert and vindicate their
clause of the Constitution as it applies to
rights therein.
administrative proceedings were violated in the
 Parties-litigant are duty bound to observe the
initiation, conduct, or disposition of the
proper order of recourse through the judicial
investigations complained of.
hierarchy; they by-pass the rungs of the judicial
 There are, however, insuperable obstacles to the
ladder at the peril of their own causes.
Court's taking up that issue and resolving it in these
WHEREFORE, both petitioners are DISMISSED,
cases. Said issue is not ripe for adjudication by this
without prejudice to any appeals, if still timely, that
Court in the exercise of its review jurisdiction; and
the individual petitioners may take to the Civil
this, for the obvious reason that it is one of fact.
Service Commission on the matters complained of.
 The petitions and subsequent pleadings of the
petitioners allege the following facts: (a) that
teachers were dismissed on the sole basis of
unsworn reports of their principals and without
evidence of their alleged failure to obey the return-
to-work order; (b) that the charge sheets failed to
specify the particular charges or offenses allegedly

You might also like