G.R. No. 110379 November 28, 1997
HON. ARMAND FABELLA, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS; John Doe (not his real name), in his capacity as REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DECS-NCR; DR. BIENVENIDO ICASIANO, in his capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF THE QUEZON CITY SCHOOLS DIVISION; ALMA BELLA O. BAUTISTA, AURORA C. VALENZUELA and TERESITA V. DIMAGMALIW, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARITO A. SEPTIMO, ERLINDA B. DE LEON, CLARISSA T. DIMAANO, WILFREDO N. BACANI, MARINA R. VIVAR, VICTORIA S. UBALDO, JENNIE L. DOGWE, NORMA L. RONGCALES, EDITA C. SEPTIMO, TERESITA E. EVANGELISTA, CATALINA R. FRAGANTE, REBECCA D. BAGDOG, MARILYNNA C. KU, MARRISA M. SAMSON, HENEDINA B. CARILLO, NICASIO C. BRAVO, RUTH F. LACANILAO, MIRASOL C. BALIGOD, FELISA S. VILLACRUEL, MA. VIOLETA ELIZABETH Y. HERNANDEZ, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, ADRIANO S. VALENCIA and ELEUTERIO S. VARGAS, respondents.

FACTS

On September 17, 1990, then DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño issued a return-to-work order to public school teachers who participated in walk-outs and strikes from September 26 to October 18, 1990. On October 18, 1990, Secretary Cariño filed administrative cases against the private respondent teachers of Mandaluyong High School for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of civil service rules, refusal to perform official duty, conduct prejudicial to the service, and absence without leave, and placed them under preventive suspension. The charges were later amended to specify the strike dates. An investigating committee was formed by the DECS Secretary. During the administrative hearings starting December 20, 1990, the teachers’ counsel objected to the committee’s procedure and demanded a copy of its investigation guidelines, which he later obtained. The guidelines allegedly placed the burden of proof on the teachers to prove their innocence. On April 10, 1991, the teachers filed an injunctive suit (Civil Case No. 60675) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which was later amended to a petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging the committee acted with grave abuse of discretion. The DECS investigating committee rendered a decision on August 6, 1991, finding the teachers guilty and ordering their dismissal. The RTC initially dismissed the petition but the Supreme Court reinstated it and ordered the teachers’ reinstatement pending resolution. During pre-trial, the RTC ordered Secretary Cariño to appear personally. He failed to appear on the reset date of June 26, 1992, and was represented by attorneys with special powers of attorney. The RTC declared the petitioners in default and denied their motion for reconsideration. The hearing proceeded ex parte. On August 10, 1992, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the teachers’ dismissal null and void, ordering their reinstatement with back salaries and benefits. The RTC held that Republic Act No. 4670 (The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) governed the investigation, not the general provisions of P.D. No. 807, and that the investigating committee was illegally constituted under Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 . It also found the dismissal was effected without due process as the procedure shifted the burden of proof to the teachers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which declared the administrative proceedings and the dismissal of the private respondent teachers null and void for violation of due process and for being conducted by an illegally constituted investigating committee under R.A. No. 4670 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that due process requires notice and hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal. The right to due process loses meaning in the absence of such a tribunal. The Court found that the administrative proceedings were void. The investigating committee was illegally constituted because its composition violated Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 , which is a special law that prevails over the general provisions of P.D. No. 807. The Court also found that the dismissal was effected without due process. The procedure adopted by the committee shifted the burden of proof to the teachers to prove their innocence, which is a denial of basic fair play. Since the administrative proceedings were void, no misconduct could be imputed to the private respondents, and their suspension or dismissal was baseless. Consequently, the Court upheld the reinstatement of the private respondents and the payment of their back salaries, allowances, bonuses, and other benefits accruing during the period of their unjustified suspension or dismissal.