G.R. No. 194192               June 16, 2015 CA-G.R. SP No.

o. 02793- MIN dated 7 The records show that as early as 16 May Pahawa Na!" at the beginning of the Fun
October 2010, affirming the 14 January 2007, the members and officers of Run at VictoriaPlaza at around 6:30 in the
DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT 2009 Resolution No. 09-0047 rendered by NAMADACWAD have been staging pickets morning and continued to wear the same
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL the Civil Service Commission (CSC). in front of the DCWD Office during their inside the premises of the DCWD office
MANAGER, RODORA N. lunch breaks to air their grievances about during the office hours. Also, one of the
GAMBOA, Petitioner, The Facts the non-payment of their Collective members of the Board of Directors of
vs. Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives NAMADACWAD Gregorio S. Cagula
RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ, GREGORIO S. and their opposition to DCWD’s (Cagula), with the help of some of its
Petitioner Davao City Water District(DCWD)
CAGULA, CELESTINO A. BONDOC, privatization and proposed One Hundred members, attached similar inscriptions and
is a government-owned and controlled
DANILO L. BUHAY, PEDRO E. ALCALA, Million Peso Loan. posters of employees’ grievances to a post
corporation in Davao City represented by its
JOSEPH A. VALDEZ, TITO V. in the motor pool area, an area not among
General Manager Engr. Rodora N. Gamboa
SABANGAN, MARCELINO B. ANINO, On 31 October 2007, GM Gamboa issued the officially designated places5 for posting
(GM Gamboa). The private respondents,
JUANITO C. PANSACALA, JOEMARIE B. an Office Memorandum addressed to all of grievances as prescribed by DCWD’s
namely, Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Gregorio S.
ALBA, ANTERO M. YMAS, ROLANDO L. department managers concerning the Office Memorandum6 dated 8 February
Cagula, Celestino A. Bondoc, Danilo
LARGO, RENEBOY U. ESTEBAN, different activities that would take place 1996 and pursuant to CSC Memorandum
L.Buhay, Pedro E. Alcala, Joseph A.
MANUEL B. LIBANG, ROMEORICO A. during DCWD’s then upcoming anniversary Circular No. 33,7 Series of 1994 (MC No.
Valdez, Tito V. Sabangan,Marcelino B.
LLANOS, ARTHUR C. BACHILLER, celebration. The Memorandum reads: 33).8
Anino, Juanito C. Pansacala, Joemarie B.
SOCRATES V. CORCUERA, Alba, Antero M. Ymas, Rolando L. Largo,
ALEJANDRO C. PICHON, GRACIANO A. Reneboy U. Esteban, Manuel B. Libang, Please be informed that the opening As a consequence of their actions, GM
MONCADA, ROLANDO K. ESCORIAL, Romeorico A. Llanos, Arthur C. Bachiller, activities of our 34th anniversary this Gamboa sent a Memorandum dated 14
NOEL A. DAGALE, EMILIO S. MOLINA, Socrates V. Corcuera, Alejandro C. Pichon, coming 09 November 2007 are the November 2007 addressed to the officers
SHERWIN S. SOLAMO, FULGENCIO I. Graciano A . Moncada, Rolando K. motorcade and the fun run. The assembly and members of NAMADACWAD, requiring
DYGUAZO, GUALBERTO S. PAGATPAT, Escorial, Noel A. Dagale, Emilio S. Molina, area will be at the Victoria Plaza Mall them to explain the reasons for the attire
JOSEPH B. ARTAJO, FELIXBERTO Q. Sherwin S. Solamo, Fulgencio I. Dyguazo, parking, in front of Cynthia’s Lechon Hauz, they wore during the anniversary
OBENZA, FLORANTE A. FERRAREN, Gualberto S. Pagatpat, Joseph B. Artajo, 6:00 o’clock in the morning. celebration. Through a collective letter
ELSA A. ELORDE, CARLOS P. MORRE, Felixberto Q. Obenza, Florante A. Ferraren, dated 19 November 2007, the officers and
JAMES AQUILINO M. COLOMA, Elsa A. Elorde, Carlos P. Morre, James members explained that the Memorandum
In view of this, everybody is expected to be
JOAQUIN 0. CADORNA, JR., LORNA M. Aquilino M. Coloma, Joaquin O. Cadorna, only required the employees to wear any
there except only those who are assigned
MAXINO, ROMULO A. REYES, NOEL G. Jr., Lorna M. Maxino, Romulo A. Reyes, sports attire, though theirs were with
as a skeletal force. All carpool vehicles are
LEGASPI, ELEANOR R. LAMOSTE, Noel G. Legaspi, Eleanor R. Lamoste, additional inscriptions containing
also enjoined to proceed at the said area.
WELMER E. CRASCO, DELIO T. OLAER, WelmerE. Crasco, Delio T. Olaer, Vicente grievances. They countered that the
The participants are free to wear any sports
VICENTE R. MASUCOL, IRENEO A. R. Masucol, Ireneo A. Cubal, Edwin A. dela inscriptions were but manifestations of their
attire. Further, you are advised to sign in
CUBAL, EDWIN A. DELA PENA, JIMMY Peña, Jimmy A. Trocio, Wilfredo L. Torreon, constitutional rights of free speech and
the attendance sheet provided by the HRD.3
A. TROCIO, WILFREDO L. TORREON, Alejandrito M.Alo, Raul S. Saga, Joselito P. freedom of expression.9
ALEJANDRITO M. ALO, RAUL S. SAGA, Riconalla, Trisebal Q. Aguilar, Arman N.
JOSELITO P. RICONALLA, TRISEBAL Q. On 8 November 2007, the officers and
Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C. Gunting On 23 November 2007, another
AGUILAR, ARMAN N. LORENZO, SR. members of NAMADACWAD held an
(Aranjuez, et al.) are officers and members Memorandum was sent to the officers of
and PEDRO C. GUNTING, Respondents. Emergency General Assembly and they
of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Davao City NAMADACWAD requiring them to explain
agreed to wear NAMADACWAD t-shirts
Water District (NAMADACWAD). They were within 72-hours why they should not be held
with inscriptions stating, "CNA Incentive
RESOLUTION charged with several administrative cases liable for the actions committed by Cagula.10
Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!" on
due to acts committed during the the day of the anniversary.4
PEREZ, J.: anniversary celebration of DCWD such as Finding prima facie case against them, GM
wearing of t-shirts with inscriptions and Gamboa filed formal charges against the
posting of bond papers outside the Came the anniversary, officers and
This is a Petition for Review on officers and members of NAMADACWAD
designated places. The inscriptions and members sported t-shirts with inscriptions
Certiorari1 of the Decision2 of the Twenty as follow:
postings bore employees’ grievances. "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza
Third Division of the Court of Appeals in
1. For DCWD Administrative Case On 19 March 2008, GM Gamboa issued CSC Resolution Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations
No. 34-2007 against the officials of several Orders17 adopting the and are meted the following penalties, to
NAMADACWAD for violation of recommendation submitted by the Hearing On 14 January 2009, CSC issued a wit:
Existing Civil Service Law and Committee but modifying some of the Resolution23 partly granting the consolidated
Rules of Serious Nature defined corresponding penalties in view of appeal and held that the collective act of 1. As to members Danilo Buhay,
under Section 46 [12], Book V of mitigating circumstances such as first respondents in wearing t-shirts with Pedro E. Alcala, Joseph A. Valdez,
Executive Order No. 292,11 in infractionand substantial justice. However, grievance inscriptions during office hours Tito V. Sabangan, Marcelino B.
relation to Rule IV, Section 52 B [4] three officials namely Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, was not within the ambit of the definition of Anino, Juanito C. Pansacala,
of the Civil Service Resolution No. Cagula and Celestino A. Bondoc were prohibited mass action punishable under Joemarie B. Alba, Antero M. Ymas,
99193612 dated August 31, 1999 penalized with dismissal from the service CSC Resolution 021316 since there was no Rolando L. Largo, Reneboy U.
and Civil Service Resolution No. for the reason that the infraction was the intent to cause work stoppage. However, Esteban, Manuel B. Libang,
02131613 dated October 11, 2002 second administrative offense of serious though not prohibited under the Resolution, Romeorico A. Llanos, Arthur C.
and MC No. 33 dated October 21, nature.18 the act was considered as an offense Bachiller, Socrates V. Corcuera,
1994.14 punishable under "Violation of Reasonable Alejandro C. Pichon, Graciano A.
Aggrieved, Aranjuez, et al., filed an Urgent Office Rules and Regulations." CSC further Moncada, Rolando Escorial, Noel
2. For DCWD Administrative Case Motion for Reconsideration19 with Prayer to ruled that Cagula’s act of posting of A. Dagale, Emilio S. Molina,
Nos. 11-2007 to 33-2007 and 35- Suspend the Immediate Execution of the grievances outside the designated areas Sherwin S. Solano, Danilo L. Buhay
2007 to 44-2007 involving the Orders dated 19 March 2008. The Motion was a clear violation of MC No. 33. By and Fulgencio I. Dyguazo, the
individual members of for Reconsideration was thereafter reason of Cagula’s position, the other penalty of reprimand;
NAMADACWAD for violation of submitted for resolution after the Hearing officers of NAMADACWAD were
Existing Civil Service Law and Committee waived the filing of a Comment. considered as having agreed and conspired 2. As to officers Gualberta S.
Rules of Serious Nature defined On 17 April 2008, the Motion was denied by to commit the said act and as such are as Pagatpat, Joseph A. Artalo,
under Section 46 [12], Book V of DCWD. liable as Cagula. Felixberto Q. Obenza, Florante A.
Executive Order No. 292,15 in Ferraren, Elsa A. Ilorde, Carlos P.
relation to Rule IV, Section 52 B [4] On 2 May 2008, Aranjuez, et al., filed an On the other hand, and contrary to the Morre, James Aquilino M. Coloma,
of the Civil Service Resolution No. appeal before the CSC bringing up, among assertions of DCWD, the violations Joacquin O. Cadorna, Jr., Lorna M.
991936 dated August 31, 1999 and other issues, the violation of their committed by the private respondents are Maximo, Romulo A. Reyes, Noel
Civil Service Resolution No. 021316 constitutional rights to assemble and not serious in nature due to the lack of any G.Legazpi, Eleanor R. Lamoste,
dated October 11, 2002. petition for redress of grievances.20 abusive, vulgar, defamatory or libelous Welmer E. Crasco, Delio T. Olaer,
language. The dispositive portion reads: Vicente R. Masucol, Ireneo Cubal,
After giving those concerned the In its Comment, DCWD defended the Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Gregorio S.
opportunity to explain through Orders on the basis of Section 6 of CSC WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Appeal Cagula and Celestino A. Bondoc,
several hearings and submission of Resolution No. 02131621 which provides filed by Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, et al. is the penalty of reprimand and strong
additional evidence, the Hearing that the concerted activity like the PARTLY GRANTED. The Orders dated warning that a repetition of the
Committee, through the authority participation of the officers and employees March 19, 2008 issued by the General same shall be dealt with severely.
given by DCWD to hear the during the fun run wearing t-shirts with Manager Rodora N. Gamboa finding
administrative charges, filed on 14 inscriptions was prohibited because it was appellants guilty of Violation of Existing Civil 3. As to members Edwin A. dela
March 2008 its Consolidated done during office hours. Moreover, the act Service Law and Rules of Serious Nature Peña, Jummy A. Trocio, Wilfredo A.
Resolution and Recommendation of Cagula in posting papers with grievances (Section 46 [12] Book V of Executive Order Torreon, Alejandrito M. Alo, Raul S.
finding the officers and members of outside the designated areas was a clear No. 292, in relation to Rule IV, Section 52 B Saga, Joselito P. Riconalla,
the NAMADACWAD guilty as violation of MC No. 33 in relation to 8 [4] of the CSC Resolution No. 991936 dated Trisebal Q. Aguilar,Arman L.
charged with penalties ranging from February 1996 Office Memorandum. It was August 31, 1999 and CSC Resolution No. Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C. Gunting,
suspension to dismissal from submitted that due to Cagula’s membership 021316 dated October 11, 2002 and CSC they are likewise found guilty of the
service with all accessory penalties in the Board of Directors of MC No. 33 dated October 21, 1994), are offense of Violation of Reasonable
under the CSC Law and Rules.16 NAMADACWAD, the other officers were hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, appellants Office Rules and Regulations but
solidarily responsible for his actions.22 are hereby found liable for Violation of are not meted a penalty considering
 that they are casual employees working hours of that day indicate a The court a quo erred in ruling that 991936, particularly their failure to file a
whose renewal of appointments complete absence of any intention on their respondents’ act of posting white bond notice of appeal, their failure to show proof
were held in abeyance.24 part to effect a work stoppage or papers with union-related inscriptions on of payment of the appeal fee and the
disturbance. In fact, as attested by both their t-shirts while inside the office premises petition’s invalid verification and certification
Aggrieved, DCWD filed a Petition for parties, all the respondents participated with does not constitute serious violation of Civil of non-forum shopping.
Review under Rules 43 before the Court of the planned activities and festivities on that Service Rules but only a violation of
Appeals alleging procedural and day.26 Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, We are not persuaded.
substantive infirmities of the CSC despite the fact that the said Memorandum
Resolution. The appellate court was likewise in Circular No. 33 is a CSC-issued Though the appeal before the CSC lacked a
agreement with the CSC which considered Memorandum and not DCWD-issued Rules. notice of appeal as required by CSC
The Court of Appeals’ Decision as simple violation of office rules the Resolution No. 991936 or the Uniform
posting of banners outside the designated V. Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
posting areas by Cagula. Also like the CSC, Service (URACCS),27 the Consolidated
In its decision, the Court of Appeals
it ruled that such offense is not punishable The court a quo erred in ruling that MC No. Memorandum filed by the private
affirmed in toto25 the resolution of CSC.
with the penalty of dismissal. 33 was not violated by respondent Gregorio respondents was enough to be considered
S. Cagula and the rest of the officials of as a sufficient compliance with the rules.
The appellate court disagreed with the
The DCWD is now before us still with its NAMADACWAD who were charged in The Memorandum delineates the errors
contention of DCWD that there was a
basic arguments, though rephrased: DCWD Administrative case No. 34-2007. asserted against DCWD and the
violation of any provision of Resolution No.
discussions supporting their arguments. We
021316 in this wise:
I. VI. find merit in the sufficiency of the
Memorandum rather than strict compliance
As correctly observed by the Civil Service in view of the constitutional right of every
Commission, the act of respondents in The court a quo failed to rule on the issue The court a quo erred in not taking into
employee to security of tenure. A more
sporting a t-shirt with the inscription "CNA whether or not the respondents’ consideration that respondents Aranjuez,
relevant consideration of public interest is
INCENTIVE IHATAG NA, DIRECTOR Consolidated Appeal filed before the CSC Cagula and Bondoc were second-time
accorded whenever the merits of a case
BRAGANZA,PAHAWA NA!" during the fun was sufficient in form and substance. offenders who were previously charged and
collide with rigid application of the rules.28
run and even inside the office premises penalized for violation of MC No. 33,
hardly qualifies as a prohibited concerted II. thereby justifying their dismissal from the
service. Further, we find that the Civil Service
mass action under CSC Resolution No.
Commission, the agency directly
021316. The court a quo erred in ruling that the concerned, the ruling of which was upheld
concerted mass action on November 9, VII.
by the Court of Appeals on review, correctly
xxxx 2007 was not prohibited under Resolution exercised jurisdiction over respondent’s
No. 021316. The court a quo erred when it failed to rule appeal from the decision of petitioner
To say the least, Section 5 of Resolution on the issue of whether the decisions of a DCWD, thereby ruling against, if sub
No. 01316 provides a specific guideline as III. government agency, acting as Disciplining silentio, the argument of petitioner that the
to what constitutes a prohibited concerted Authority, in disciplinary cases are appeal should be dismissed for lack of proof
activity. A prohibited concerted activity must immediately executory upon receipt thereof. of payment of appeal. The Civil Service
The court a quo erred in ruling that
be one undertaken by government Resolution No. 021316 and MC No. 33 are Commission and the Court of Appeals
employees, by themselves or through their considered "reasonable office rules and The Court's Ruling considered the procedural issue raised by
association, with the intent of effecting work regulations" within the purview of Section petitioner as a surmountable bar to the
stoppage or service disruption, in order to 52 C [3] of the Uniform Rules on The Court finds no merit in the petition. resolution of the main issue of respondents’
realize their demands or force concessions. Administrative Cases. constitutional right to free expression29 as
In the case at hand, we can readily observe amplified with specificity by their guaranteed
Prefatorily, DCWD contends that the appeal
that respondent’s participation in the fun right as workers to peaceful concerted
IV. of Aranjuez, et al., should have been
run, as well as their behavior inside the activity and their entitlement to security of
dismissed by the CSC for non-compliance
premises of DCWD office during the regular tenure.30 The decisions of the Civil Service
with Section 46 of CSC Resolution No.
Commission and the Court of Appeals are When substantial justice dictates it, represent the organization in all legal undertaken by government employees, by
squarely supported by Adalim v. procedural rules may be relaxed in order to matters to be filed for whatever purpose it themselves or through their employees
Taniñas31 stating that: arrive at a just disposition of a case. The may serve. From the general and broad organizations, with the intent of effecting
purpose behind limiting the period of appeal grant of authority, Aranjuez possessed the work stoppage or service disruption in order
In a number of cases, we upheld the CSC’s is to avoid unreasonable delay in the specific authority to sign in behalf of his to realize their demands of force
decision relaxing its procedural rules to administration of justice and to put an end principal the verification and certification concession, economic or otherwise, from
render substantial justice. The Revised to controversies. A one-day delay as in this against non-forum shopping required of the their respective agencies or the
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil case, does not justify denial of the appeal petition. government. It shall include mass leaves,
Service themselves provide that where there is absolutely no indication of walkouts, pickets and acts of similar
administrative investigations shall be intent to delay as in this case, does not To the kernel, then. nature.39 (Emphasis ours).
conducted without strict recourse to the justify denial of the appeal where there is
technical rules of procedure and evidence absolutely no indication of intent to delay The operative phrases are "any collective
DCWD primarily contends that CSC and the
applicable to judicial proceedings. The case justice on the part of Paler and the pleading activity" and "work stoppage or service
Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
before the CSC involves the security of is meritorious on its face. disruption." Without the intent at work
concerted mass action on 9 November
tenure of public employees protected by the 2007 is not prohibited under Resolution No. stoppage or service disruption, the
Constitution. Public interest requires a We rule in favor of the allowance of 021316. We disagree. DCWD relies on concerted activity is not prohibited. The time
resolution of the merits of the appeal respondents’ appeal because: Resolution No. 021316, which states: and place of the activity are not
instead of dismissing the same based on a determinative of the prohibition. Whether
rigid application of the CSC Rules of Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the done within government hours, a concerted
Section 6. Permissible Concerted Mass
Procedure. Accordingly, both the CSC and prerogative to relax compliance with activity is allowed if it is without any intent at
Action.– A concerted activity or mass action
the CA properly allowed respondent procedural rules of even the most work stoppage.
done outside of government office hours
employees’ appeal despite procedural mandatory character, mindful of the duty to shall not be deemed a prohibited concerted
lapses to resolve the issue on the merits. reconcile both the need to put an end to We cannot isolate the provision of Section 6
activity or mass action within the
litigation speedily and the parties’ right to an contemplation of this omnibus rules of the Resolution from definition of
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of opportunity to be heard.35 (Emphasis provided the same shall not occasion or prohibited activity in Section 5 thereof. It is
Appeals,32 this Court pronounced that supplied) result in the disruption of work or service.38 erroneous to interpret the provisions in such
technical rules of procedure are not ends in a way that an act not within the
themselves but primarily devised and Quoting again the case of Republic v. Court circumstances as defined under Section 5
DCWD argues that since the concerted or
designed to help in the proper and of Appeals,36 we pointed out that this Court can still be regarded as prohibited if done
mass action was done within government
expedient dispensation of justice. In can temper rigid rules in favor of substantial within government hours. To subscribe to
office hours, such act was not permissible,
appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may justice. We find that pronouncement apt the argument of DCWD would in effect
therefore prohibited. Otherwise stated, a
have to be so construed liberally as to meet and fit to this case. Thereby we are not expand the definition provided by
concerted activity done within the regular
and advance the cause of substantial detained by the omissions of the Resolution No. 021316 on what constitutes
government office hours is automatically a
justice. While it is desirable that the rules of respondents in their resort to the CSC, and a prohibited mass action.
violation of Section 6 of the Resolution.
procedure are faithfully and even we thus proceed to the merits of the
meticulously observed, courts should not be petitioners’ submissions. It is clear that the collective activity of
so strict about procedural lapses that do not Notably, however, a prohibited concerted
joining the fun run in t-shirts with
really impair the proper administration of mass action is defined not in Sec. 6 of
Lastly, on the form, we find no merit in the inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to
justice. If the rules are intended to ensure Resolution No. 021316 but in Sec. 5
contention that Aranjuez was not authorized effect work stoppage or disrupt the service.
the orderly conduct of litigation, it is thereof. Thus:
to sign on behalf of the other petitioners. As pointed out by the respondents, they
because of the higher objective they seek followed the advice of GM Gamboa "to be
Pursuant to Union Resolution No. 015-
which is the protection of substantive rights Section 5. Definition of Prohibited there" at the fun run. Respondents joined,
200837 attached as Annex A to the
of the parties.33 Substantial justice, in other Concerted Mass Action. - As used in this and did not disrupt the fun run. They were in
Appellants’ 015-2008 Consolidated
words must prevail. In Paler,34 We said: Omnibus Rules, the phrase ‘‘prohibited sports attire that they were allowed, nay
Memorandum dated 26 March 2008, the concerted activity or mass action’’ shall be required, to wear. Else, government
officers and members of NAMDACWAD understood to refer to any collective activity employees would be deprived of their
gave Aranjuez a general authority to
constitutional right to freedom of As defined in Section 5 of CSC Resolution 1. All head of agencies are hereby freedom." But there are some rights and
expression.40 This, then, being the fact, we No. 02-1316 which serves to regulate the directed to provide specific spaces freedoms so fundamental to liberty that they
have to rule against the findings of both the political rights of those in the government within their respective premises, cannot be bargained away in a contract for
CSC and Court of Appeals that the wearing service, the concerted activity or mass preferably near the bundy clock, at public employment. It is the Court’s
of t-shirts with grievance inscriptions action proscribed must be coupled with the the canteen or places normally responsibility to ensure that citizens are not
constitutes as a violation of Reasonable "intent of effecting work stoppage or service frequented by employees, where deprived of these fundamental rights by
Office Rules and Regulations. disruption in order to realize their demands employees’ unions/associations virtue of working for the government.46
of force concession. "Wearing similarly could post their posters.
First off and as correctly pointed out by the colored shirts, attending a public hearing at The GSIS case pronounced:
charged officials and members in their 19 the GSIS-IU office, bringing with them 2. x x x.
November 2007 Reply Letter to DCWD, recording gadgets, clenching their fists, Government workers, whatever their ranks,
they did not violate the 31 October 2007 some even badmouthing the guards and 3. The hanging of posters and have as much right as any person in the
Office Memorandum issued by GM PGM Garcia, are acts not constitutive of an streamers shall only be allowed in land to voice out their protests against what
Gamboa relating to the proper attire to be (i) intent to effect work stoppage or service the designated areas. they believe to be a violation of their rights
worn during the fun run. The Office disruption and (ii) for the purpose of and interests. Civil Service does not deprive
Memorandum was clear in its order that the realizing their demands or force
4. No poster, placard, streamer or them of their freedom of expression. It
participants are free to wear any sports concession.
other similar materials containing would be unfair to hold that by joining the
attire during the event. To reiterate, the t- government service, the members thereof
abusive, vulgar, defamatory or
shirts they wore fall within the description of Precisely, the limitations or qualifications have renounced or waived this basic liberty.
libelous language shall be allowed.
"any sports attire" that the Memorandum found in Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. This freedom can be reasonably regulated
allowed to be worn. 02-1316 are there to temper and focus the only but can never be taken away.47
application of such prohibition. Not all Pursuant to this mandate, the former
collective activity or mass undertaking of General Manager of DCWD issued an office
More importantly we need to refer to GSIS In simple paraphrase we say, regulation of
government employees is prohibited. memorandum designating the bulletin board
v. Villaviza (GSIS case).41 It was there the freedom of expression is not removal of
Otherwise, we would be totally depriving at the motor pool area below the Office of
ruled that the acts of GSIS employees the constitutional right.
our brothers and sisters in the government the Purchasing Division and the side of the
wearing similarly colored shirts while
service of their constitutional right to office building beside the guard house
attending a public hearing inside the GSIS
freedom of expression.43 where the bundy clock is located as the Apparently, DCWD, not satisfied by the
Office, with clenching of fists and orating designated areas for posting of CSC ruling that a violation of the
against the then President Winston Garcia, grievances.44 Clearly, the DCWD Office memorandum is punishable with reprimand,
were not constitutive of a prohibited activity DCWD also found that Cagula and the rest Memorandum hews close and faithfully to argues that what occurred was a serious
but were only an exercise of their of the officials violated MC No. 33 in relation MC No. 33. It is a reasonable rule issued by violation implying that a higher penalty is
constitutional freedom of expression.42 We to 8 February 1996 Office Memorandum. the heads of the agencies in order to warranted.
repeat: DCWD also argues that a violation of this regulate posting of grievances of the
circular constitutes as a serious violation of employees. Under Section 52 (C) (3), Rule IV of
In this case, CSC found that the acts of CSC Rules as the circular is a CSC-issued
Memorandum and not just a mere issuance Resolution No. 991936,48 violation of
respondents in going to the GSIS-IU office
of DCWD. It is correct to conclude that those who reasonable office rules and regulations is
wearing red shirts to witness a public enter government service are subjected to a punishable with reprimand on the first
hearing do not amount to a concerted different degree of limitation on their offense and suspension ranging from one to
activity or mass action proscribed above. CSC issued MC No. 33 in recognition of the freedom to speak their mind; however, it is thirty days for the second offense.
CSC even added that their actuations can rights of the government employees to air not tantamount to the relinquishment of
be deemed an exercise of their their grievances balanced by the delivery of their constitutional right of expression In Re: Failure of Various Employees to
constitutional right to freedom of services to the public which should not be otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason Register their Time of Arrival and/or
expression. The CA found no cogent prejudiced. MC No. 33 sets down rules of their employment.45 Unarguably, a citizen Departure from Office in the Chronolog
reason to deviate therefrom. governing the posting of posters and other who accepts public employment "must Machine, the charged court employees
similar materials within the premises of accept certain limitations on his or her were penalized for violation of reasonable
government agencies as follows:
office rules and regulations due to their reglementary period for filing a motion for construction or interpretation. The letter and Celestino A. Bondoc, the penalty of
violation of Supreme Court Administrative reconsideration or an appeal and no such must be taken to mean exactly what it says reprimand and strong warning that a
Circular No. 36-2001 requiring all pleading has been filed.51 and the court has no choice but to see to it repetition of the same shall be dealt with
employees to register their daily that its mandate is obeyed.54 severely is hereby AFFIRMED.
attendance, in the Chronolog Time As distinguished by the law, if the imposed
Recorder Machine (CTRM) and in the suspension exceeds thirty days or the fine The ponente appreciates the concurrence SO ORDERED.
logbook of their respective offices. imposed is in an amount over thirty-day of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. No need
Following Resolution No. 991936 that salary, the decision will only attain finality was seen, though, to add to the ruling that
violation of reasonable rules and after the lapse of the reglementary period in the present facts limited.
regulations is a light offense, the Court the absence of any motion for
penalized its erring employees with the reconsideration or appeal. Penalties within WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition for
penalty of reprimand.49 the 30-day threshold are immediately review on certiorari. Nonetheless, the
executory penalties. decision of the CSC which was affirmed in
Thus, in line with the civil service rules and toto by the CA is MODIFIED. The finding of
jurisprudence, we conclude that a violation In this case, the members and officials, administrative liability of and the penalty of
of an office memorandum, which was except the casual employees who were not reprimand against the NAMADACWAD
issued as an internal rule to regulate the meted with penalty as the renewal of their members namely Danilo L. Buhay, Pedro E.
area for posting of grievances inside the employment was held in abeyance, were Alcala, Joseph A. Valdez, Tito V.
office premise, is only a light offense sanctioned with penalties ranging from Sabangan, Marcelino B. Anino, Juanito C.
punishable by reprimand. suspension of work from one (1) month and Pansacala, Joemarie B. Alba, Antero M.
one (1) day to dismissal from Ymas, Rolando L. Largo, Reneboy U.
Rules and regulations are issued to attain service.52 Evidently, the finality and Esteban, Manuel B. Libang, Romeorico A.
harmony, smooth operation, maximize execution of the judgment did not take Llanos, Arthur C. Bachiller, Socrates V.
efficiency and productivity, with the ultimate place after the lapse of the reglementary Corcuera, Alejandro C. Pichon, Graciano A.
objective of realizing the functions of period because as previously discussed, Moncada, Rolando K. Escorial, Noel A.
particular offices and agencies of the the members and officials were able to file Dagale, Emilio S. Molina, Sherwin S.
government.50 their consolidated appeal in lieu of notice of Solamo, and Fulgencio I. Dyguazo are
appeal. hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
On the submissions that the decisions of a
government agency, acting as Disciplining As clear as the provision on the finality of The finding of liability against the casual
Authority, are immediately executory upon decisions is Section 42 of Resolution No. employees namely Edwin A. dela Peña,
receipt thereof, we need merely cite Section 991936 on the effect of motions for Jummy A. Trocio, Wilfredo L. Torreon,
37 of the Resolution No. 991936 which reconsideration. Thus: Alejandrito M. Alo, Raul S. Saga, Joselito P.
clearly provides that: Riconalla, Trisebal Q. Aguilar, Arman N.
Section 42. Effect of Filing. — The filing of a Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C. Gunting is
Section 37. Finality of Decisions. — A motion for reconsideration within the REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
decision rendered by heads of agencies reglementary period of fifteen (15) days
whereby a penalty of suspension for not shall stay the execution of the decision As to officers Gualberto S. Pagatpat,
more than thirty (30) days or a fine in an sought to be reconsidered.53 (Emphasis Joseph B. Artajo, Felixberto Q. Obenza,
amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' ours) Florante A. Ferraren, Elsa A. Elorde, Carlos
salary is imposed, shall be final and P. Morre, James Aquilino M. Coloma,
executory. However, if the penalty imposed The first and fundamental duty of the Court Joaquin O. Cadorna, Jr., Lorna M. Maxino,
is suspension exceeding thirty (30) days, or is to apply the law. If the law is clear and Romulo A. Reyes, Noel G. Legaspi, Eleanor
fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days free from any doubt or ambiguity as the R.Lamoste, Welmer E. Crasco, Delio T.
salary, the same shall be final and quoted provision, there is no room for Olaer, Vicente R. Masucol, Ireneo Cubal,
executory after the lapse of the Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Gregorio S. Cagula