G.R. No. 132088 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby finds Everdina Acosta guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. She is hereby meted out the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay. Considering the period of time she was out of service, she is automatically reinstated to her former positions (sic). [5] Following the denial of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners questioned the matter before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court denied their petition for certiorari and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. Petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration: RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION THAT WRONGLY PENALIZED PETITIONERS WHOSE ONLY "OFFENSE" WAS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. RESPONDENT COYRT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION THAT WRONGLY DENIED PETITIONERS THEIR RIGHT TO BACKWAGES. This petition is not impressed with merit. Petitioners do not deny their absence from work nor the fact that said absences were due to their participation in the mass actions at the Liwasang Bonifacio. However, they contend that their participation in the mass actions was an exercise of their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Petitioners likewise maintain that they never went on strike because they never sought to secure changes or modification of the terms and conditions of their employment. Petitioners' contentions are without merit. The character and legality of the mass actions which they participated in have been passed upon by this Court as early as 1990 in Manila Public School Teachers' Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio, Jr. [6] wherein we ruled that "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' sworn duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons." [7] In Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals , [8] we added that: 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. The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. In the absence of statute, public employees do not have the right to engage in concerted work stoppages for any purpose. Further, herein petitioners, except Mariano, are being penalized not because they exercised their right of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances but because of their successi