G.R. No.

95445 August 6, 1991

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN ANONUEVO, MINDA
GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous similarly situated, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 18, HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO, in his capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and
Sports and the HON. ERLINDA LOLARGA in her capacity as Manila City Schools
Superintendent, respondents-appellees.

G.R No. 95590 August 6, 1991

ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED TEACHERS (ACT), ENRIQUE D. TORRES, RODRIGO G. NATIVIDAD, FRANCISCO

FACTS.

 The Teachers and Employees Consultative Council (TECC) and the Alliance of Concerned
Teachers, in accordance with their Constitution and By-Laws, resolved to engage in mass
concerted actions, after peaceful dialogues with the heads of the Department of the Budget and
Management, Senate and House of Representatives in public hearings as well as after exhausting
all administrative remedies, to press for, among other things:

o the immediate payment of due chalk

o clothing allowances

o 3th month pay for 1989 arising from the implementation of the Salary Standardization Law

o the recall of DECS Order 39 s. 1990 directing the oversizing of classes and overloading of
teachers pursuant to the cost-cutting measures of the government

o the hiring of 47,000 new teachers to ease the overload of existing teachers

o the return of the additional 1% real property taxes collected by local government units to
education purposes to be administered by the Local School Boards, and

o Consequent recall of DBM Circulars Nos. 904 and 9011 and local budget circular No. 47
consistent with RA 5447 and the new Constitution mandating that education shall enjoy
the highest budgetary priority in the national budget, and other equally important
demands

 The series of dialogues and conferences initiated by the petitioners and other teacher
organizations with various national agencies were unfruitful leaving them with no other recourse
but to take direct mass action.

 September 17, 1990 fell on a Monday, which was also a regular school day. There is no question
that the some 800 teachers who joined the mass action did not conduct their classes on that day;
instead, they converged at the Liwasang Bonifacio.

 The Secretary of Education warned them that they would lose their jobs for going on illegal and
unauthorized mass leave. Those directives notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the
week, with more teachers joining in the days that followed.
  The Secretary of Education had filed motu proprio administrative complaints against the teachers
who had taken part in the mass actions and defied the return-to-work order.

 The petitioners filed with the RTC of Manila a petition10 for prohibition, declaratory relief and
preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain the implementation of the return-to-work order and
the suspension or dismissal of any teacher pursuant thereto and to declare said order null and
void to wit the said Court rendered judgment declaring the assailed return-to-work order valid
and binding, and dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

 Review of said judgment is sought but were denied as well as their MR.

ISSUE. Whether the right to due process of the petitioners were violated. Not determined as the case is
not ripe for adjudication.

RULING:

As to the contention that it was a “mass action” and not a strike – It was the later based on the facts
alleged in their submitted pleadings.

As to the right of the petitioner to strike and peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances. – NOT violated. Reiterated the doctrine that everyone can enforce such right save
for those employed in the public sectors who are enjoined from striking which is what happened in this
case, therefore, the whole process is unlawful.

DUE PROCESS: The issue is not ripe for adjudication by this Court in the exercise of its review
jurisdiction; and this, for the obvious reason that it is one of fact.

The striking teachers who did not heed the return-to-work order were administratively charged
and preventively suspended for ninety days for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty,
insubordination, refusal to perform official duty, absence without leave beginning September
17, 1990 and other violations of Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. All of striking teachers
were served with the suspension orders and the change sheets notifying them of the charges and
giving them five (5) days from receipt of the charge sheets within which to file their respective
answers. A committee was formed to investigate the issue and to provide for the basis and
evidence of the charges filed against the striking teachers as well as the corresponding penalty
thereto. While some teachers filed their answers and participated in the investigation, some
refused and even teared the notices sent to them. Nevertheless, the investigation proceeded,
and a decision was promulgated by the Committee which was approved by the Secretary of
Education. The notices thereof served personally and/or via mail to the striking teachers.

This copious citation is made, not to suggest that the Court finds what is stated therein to be true and
the contrary averments of the petitions to be false, but precisely to stress that the facts upon which the
question of alleged denial of due process would turn are still in issue, actively controverted, hence not
yet established.

It is not for the Court, which is not a trier of facts, as the petitioners who would now withdraw correctly
put it, to make the crucial determination of what in truth transpired concerning the disputed incidents.

This case illustrates the error of precipitate recourse to the Supreme Court, especially when
numerous parties desparately situated as far as the facts are concerned gather under the umbrella
of a common plea, and generalization of what should be alleged with particularity becomes
unavoidable. The petitioners' obvious remedy was NOT to halt the administrative proceedings but,
on the contrary, to take part, assert and vindicate their rights therein, see those proceedings
through to judgment and if adjudged guilty, appeal to the Civil Service Commission; or if, pending
said proceedings, immediate recourse to judicial authority was believed necessary because the
respondent Secretary or those acting under him or on his instructions were acting without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, to apply, not directly to the Supreme Court,
but to the Regional Trial Court, where there would be an opportunity to prove the relevant facts
warranting corrective relief.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION. WHEREFORE, both petitioners are DISMISSED, without prejudice to any appeals, if
still timely, that the individual petitioners may take to the Civil Service Commission on the matters
complained of. The motions to withdraw, supra, are merely NOTED, this disposition rendering any
express ruling thereon unnecessary. No pronouncement as to costs.