Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45831:123562-65&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:17:14+00:00

Document:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated November 22, 1995 and its Resolution2 dated January 22, 1996 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 37690 and 37705-07 entitled, Leonora A. Gesite, et al. v. The Civil Service Commission and the Secretary of Education, Culture & Sports.
On September 17, 1990, a regular school day, about 800 teachers in Metro Manila did not conduct classes. Instead, they assembled in front of the DECS offices to air their grievances. When their representatives conferred with then DECS Secretary Isidro Cario, he brushed aside their complaints, warning them they would lose their jobs for taking illegal mass actions. He then ordered the teachers to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours, otherwise they will be dismissed from the service. Meantime, he directed the DECS officials to initiate immediate administrative proceedings against those found obstinate.
On appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the same was also denied. The CSC found that petitioners are liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service on the ground that they 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. The CSC imposed upon them the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay. Their respective motions for reconsideration were denied.
Hence, petitioners filed with this Court a special civil action for certiorari, which we referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 1-95,3 docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 37690 and 37705-07.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the present petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit; the assailed Resolutions issued by the respondent Civil Service Commission are hereby UPHELD.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONERS PLEA FOR THE PAYMENT OF THEIR BACKWAGES COVERING THE PERIOD WHEN THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH.
2. The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the Decision of the Civil Service Commission denying petitioners prayer for payment of their backwages during the period of their suspension from the service.
The issue of whether or not the mass action launched by the public school teachers during the period from September up to the first half of October, 1990 was a strike has been decided by this Court in a resolution, dated December 18, 1990, in the herein cited case of Manila Public School Teachers Association, et al. v. Laguio, Jr. (G.R. NOS. 95445 & 95590, August 6, 1991, 200 SCRA 323). It was there held that from the pleaded and admitted facts, these mass actions were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons.
It is an undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that petitioners purpose was to realize their demands by withholding their services. The fact that the conventional term strike was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling (Board of Education v. New Jersey Education Association (1968) 53 NJ 29, 247 A2d 867).
Actually, petitioners here were not charged administratively because they engaged in strike. Former DECS Secretary Isidro Cario filed administrative complaints against them because, as aptly held by the Court of Appeals, they were absent from classes from September 19-21, 1990, in violation of his return-to-work order. Their unauthorized absences disrupted classes and prejudiced the welfare of the school children.
Moreover, the petitioners here x x x were not penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Rather, the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority, from their schools during regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, their absence ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education, for which they were responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time recess, after classes, weekends or holidays to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one not the DECS, the CSC or even this Court could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity necessarily disrupted public services, the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government workers. Their act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil Service law, rules and regulations, for which they must, therefore, be made answerable.
Moreover, 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.
1 Rolloat 73-38. Per Associate Justice Minerva P, Gonzaga-Reyes (later a member of this Court, now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura Guererro (retired) and Romeo A. Brawner.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition government for redress of grievances.
9 Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, supra, citing Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Lagiuo, Jr., G.R. NOS. 95445 & 95590, August 6, 1991, 200 SCRA 323;Social Security System Employees Association (SSEA) v. Court of Appeals, supra; and Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, supra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.