PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVITY

G.R. No. 170463 – BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GSIS v. VELASCO

CARPIO

The GSIS issued resolutions denying certain benefits and privileges to employees with pending administrative
cases. The employees complained that the resolutions were ineffective for not having been registered with the UP Law
Center, and that substantively they were violative of their right to be presumed innocent until guilty. The Court ruled that
the resolutions did not have to be filed with the UP Law Center because they merely sought to regulate GSIS personnel
and did not pertain to the general public. However, the Court ruled that they were void because following the rules on the
grant of benefits to employees not rendering actual service, the employees in this case should have been given their
benefits after actual service of the same period they were preventively suspended (as preventive suspension is not even a
penalty).

DOCTRINE
Not all rules and regulations adopted by every government agency are to be filed with the UP Law Center. Only those of
general or of permanent character are to be filed. According to the UP Law Centers guidelines for receiving and
publication of rules and regulations, interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only
the personnel of the Administrative agency and not the public, need not be filed with the UP Law Center.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Albert Velasco and Mario Molina, respondents
GSIS Board of Trustees (GSIS Board), President and General Manager Winston Garcia (PGM Garcia), petitioner

FACTS
1. 23 May 2002: GSIS charged Molina and Velasco administratively with grave misconduct and placed them under
preventive suspension for 90 days. The charge was for their alleged participation in the protests of some GSIS
employees denouncing corruption in the GSIS and calling for the ouster of PGM Garcia.
2. 04 April 2003: Molina wrote Senior Vice President Concepcion Madarang for the implementation of his step
increment. SVP Madarang denied the request citing GSIS Board Res. No. 372, which provided: “The step increment
adjustment of an employee who is on preventive suspension shall be withheld until such time that a decision
on the case has been rendered.”
3. Molina and Velasco also asked to avail of benefits under Res. 306, but were denied also because of the pending
case.
4. GSIS Board issued Res. 197, which set the policy that an employee with a pending administrative case shall be
disqualified from the ff. during the pendency thereof: promotion, step increment, performance-based bonus, and other
benefits and privileges.
5. 14 Nov. 2003: Velasco and Molina filed before RTC Manila a petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction (WPI).
6. Velasco and Molina’s (petitioners in court a quo, now respondents) arguments:
a. Denial of benefits on the ground of a pending administrative case violates their right to be presumed innocent;
they are being punished without hearing.
b. Molina: Already earned his right to step increment before Res. 372 was enacted.
c. The resolutions are ineffective for not having been registered with the UP Law Center.
7. Petitioners’ (GSIS and PGM Garcia) arguments:
a. CSC, not RTC, has jurisdiction because it involves claims of employee benefits.
b. The GSIS Board holds principal office in Pasay City, so the petition was filed in the wrong territorial
jurisdiction.
8. RTC: Granted petition and declared Res. 197 and 372 void. (No ruling on Res. 306; Velasco and Molina did not
appeal.)

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. WN RTC Manila has jurisdiction – YES

On subject matter:
The case is about a petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI relating to an act of a board, which under Rule 65
is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. 1 Although the case relates to a claim of employee benefits, it is a prohibition case

1
Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. – x x x a person aggrieved…may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action
1
 because respondents asked that the trial court declare all acts from Res. 372, 197, and 306 void and to prohibit GSIS
from enforcing them.
On territorial jurisdiction:
The petition is a special civil action which may be filed in the SC, CA, Sandiganbayan, or RTC, as the case may
be. It is a personal action because it does not affect title to or possession of real property. Thus, it may be tried where
any of the principal plaintiffs or defendants reside, at the election of the plaintiff. RTC Manila is a proper venue
because Velasco is a resident of the City of Manila.
Manila and Pasay are both in the National Capital Judicial Region, within which a writ of prohibition from any RTC
in the same region may be enforced.2

2. WN the resolutions are ineffective for not having been registered with the UP Law Center – NO
Only rules and regulations of general or of permanent character need to be filed with the UP Law Center.
Interpretative regulation and those merely internal in nature need not be filed (according to the UP Law Center’s
guidelines; note: provision not cited or specified in the case). Since the resolutions are about the GSIS salary
structure, and authority to pay the 2002 Christmas package, and GSIS merit selection and promotion plan, they are
internal rules meant only to regulate the personnel of the GSIS and do not need to published or filed with the UP Law
Center.

3. WN the regulation disqualifying government employees with pending admin cases from receiving certain
benefits is unconstitutional – Court does not give a categorical yes, but in this case, yes
Entitlement to step increment is governed by Sec. 1(b), Rule II and Sec. 2, Rule III of Joint Circular No. 1, s.
1990.3 These require three years of continuous and satisfactory service. Actual service includes periods covered
by approved leave with pay. For employees suspended as a penalty, actual service is interrupted 4, and the employee
will be entitled to a step increment after completing the three years extended by the time such employee was under
suspension. (Grant is delayed by the same period of suspension; employee does not have to start the three years
from scratch.)
Section 60 CSC Memo Circ. No 41, s. 1998 uses the same principle of delay for employees who are on vacation
leave without pay. If an employee who is suspended as a penalty is treated like an employee on approved vacation
leave without pay, the same rule should apply to one who is preventively suspended, considering that preventive
suspension is not a penalty.
Velasco and Molina were placed under preventive suspension for 90 days: 23 May 2002 - 21 August 2002.
Molina’s letter-request to SVP Madarang was on 04 April 2003. The admin case not having been resolved yet, they
should have been reinstated and given step increment after serving the same number of days of their suspension.
The RTC was correct in declaring that respondents had the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This
means that an employee who has a pending administrative case filed against him is given the benefit of the doubt and
is considered innocent until the contrary is proven.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the 24 September 2004 Decision and the 7
October 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19 in Civil Case No. 03-108389. We DECLARE the
assailed provisions on step increment in GSIS Board Resolution Nos. 197 and 372 VOID. We MODIFY the 24 September

or matter specified therein x x x.

Sec. 4. Where petition filed. - The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution
sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it related to acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer
or person in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. x x x
2
Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, which may be
enforced in any part of their respective regions; x x x
3
Rule II. Selection Criteria
Section 1. Step increments shall be granted to all deserving officials and employees x x x
(b) Length of Service For those who have rendered continuous satisfactory service in a particular position for at least three (3) years.
Rule III. Step Increments
Section 2. Length of Service A one (1) step increment shall be granted officials and employees for every three (3) years of continuous
satisfactory service in the position. Years of service in the position shall include the following:
(a) Those rendered before the position was reclassified to a position title with a lower or the same salary grade allocation; and
(b) Those rendered before the incumbent was transferred to another position within the same agency or to another agency without a
change in position title and salary grade allocation.
In the initial implementation of step increments in 1990, an incumbent shall be granted step increments equivalent to one (1)
step for every three (3) years of continuous satisfactory service in a given position occupied as of January 1, 1990.
4
according to Sec. 56(d), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
2
2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19 and rule that GSIS Board Resolution Nos. 197, 306 and
372 need not be filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center.

DIGESTER: Gabi Timbancaya