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