[G.R. No. 128559.June 19, 2001]
OF EDUCATION CULTURE & SPORTS vs. CA,
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JUN
G.R. No. 128559(The Secretary of Education, Culture and
Sports, et al., petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Erlinda Abenis, et al.,
G.R. No. 130911(Erlinda Abenis, et al., petitioners, vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., respondents.)
For resolution is the motion
for reconsideration dated October 25, 2000 of Erlinda Abenis, et al., 1
Private respondents in G.R. No. 128559
and petitioners in G.R. No. 130911. praying for the review of this
Court's Decision in these cases in so far as it denied them their back salaries
for the period they were not allowed to teach, excluding the 6 months they were
suspended for cause.
It will be recalled that
movants were public school teachers in the National Capital Region who held
"mass actions" sometime in September 1990 at Liwasang Bonifacio, Manila.They were charged by then DECS Secretary
Isidro Carino with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of the
Civil Service law and rules, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination,
conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service and absence without
leave.After proper proceedings, the
DECS Secretary rendered judgments finding them guilty as charged and dismissing
them from the service.
The Secretary's decisions
were affirmed by the Merit and System Protection Board.
On appeal, the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) found movants guilty only of conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service.The
penalty of dismissal imposed upon each of them was reduced to six (6) months suspension
without pay and without payment of back salaries.
Movants elevated the case
to the Court of Appeals.In its
decision of February 26, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification
the CSC resolutions, thus:
resolutions of the Civil Service Commission finding the petitioners guilty of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspending them for
six (6) months are hereby affirmed with the MODIFICATION that petitioners shall
be entitled to back salaries for the period they were not allowed to teach,
except for the six (6) months during which they were suspended for cause.
Movants then filed with
this Court two separate petitions for review on certiorari.In G.R. No. 128559, the Solicitor General
assailed the Court of Appeals' award of back salaries to movants, while in G.R.
No. 130911, they sought dismissal of the administrative charges, insisting that
they were just exercising their constitutional right to assemble peacebly.The two cases were consolidated.
On October 4, 2000, this
Court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition is G.R. No. 128559 is GRANTED;
and the petition in G.R. No. 130911 DENIED.The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39722 is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the award of back salaries in favor of subject
public school teachers is hereby DELETED.No pronouncement as to costs."
In their motion for
reconsideration, movants limit their concern to that portion of this Court's
Decision deleting the award of back salaries corresponding to the period
outside the 6 months suspension imposed upon them.They contend that in dismissing them from the service, former
Secretary Carino violated their constitutional right to due process, invoking
the case of Fabella vs. Court of Appeals.
2 282 SCRA 256 (1997).In this case, petitioners, public school
teachers of the Mandaluyong High School, participated in strikes sometime in
September and October, 1990.Consequently, then DECS Secretary Carino filed various administrative
charges against them.During the
hearing, petitioners' counsel objected to the procedure of the investigating
committee.As he received no response
from the committee, counsel walked out.
Eventually, the DECS
investigating committee rendered a decision finding petitioners guilty as
charged and ordering their immediate dismissal from the service.
The issue in Fabella3
Supra. is whether or not
petitioners therein were accorded due process.This Court held that the organization of various committees formed by
the DECS to hear the administrative charges was not in accordance with the
provisions of Section 9 of R.A. 4670, or the Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers, considering that it did not include "a representative of the local
or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers'
were deprived of their constitutional right to due process.
In the instant cases, the
DECS Secretary filed administrative charges against movants.They were furnished copies thereof and were
allowed five (5) days from notice to submit their answers.Likewise, they were asked if they opt for a
formal investigation and were informed of their right to avail of the assistance
of counsel of their choice.However,
they did not file their answers, hence, they were considered to have waived
their right to controvert the charges against them.Nonetheless, investigation committees were created to investigate
and hear the charges.The school
principals were called to shed light on the inquiry.
The fact that they were
not actually heard is imputable to their own acts of shying away from the DECS
proceedings.This Court has
consistently held that due process does not necessarily mean or require a
hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard. 4
Pepsi Cola Distributor of the
Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 247 SCRA 386 (1995);
Salonga vs. NLRC; 245 SCRA 111 (1996).What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard,
hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process when he had been afforded the
opportunity to present his side. 5 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 302
SCRA 362 (1999).
Significantly, on appeal,
the Merit and System Protection Board conducted a formal hearing.Thereafter, upon review of the records, the
Civil Service Commission found movants guilty of conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service.Having
gone all the way to the Civil Service Commission, they have no reason to
complain that they were deprived of due process.The rulings of this Court in Alipat
vs. Court of Appeals, 6 308
SCRA 781 (1999). de la Cruz vs.
Court of Appeals, 7 305
SCRA 303 (1999). Jacinto vs. Court
of Appeals 8 281 SCRA
657 (1997). and Bangalisan vs.
Court of Appeals 9 276
SCRA 619 (1997). are clear that back wages may be awarded only to
dismissed public school teachers when they are found fully innocent or
completely exculpated of the charges against them.Here, movants were found to have participated in the September
1990 mass actions and refused to obey the return-to-work order of the DECS
Secretary.They were, therefore,
declared guilty of acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court