Ignoring said formal charges, KMG, thru its President, Albert Velasco, commenced

SECOND DIVISION the instant suit on November 2, 2004, with the filing of the Petition for Prohibition
at bench. On the ground that its members should not be made to explain why they
supported their union's cause, petitioner [KMG] faulted respondent [Garcia] with
G.R. No. 170132             December 6, 2006
blatant disregard of Civil Service Resolution No. 021316, otherwise known as the
Guidelines for Prohibited Mass Action, Section 10 of which exhorts government
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F. agencies to "harness all means within their capacity to accord due regard and
GARCIA, in his capacity as GSIS President & General Manager, petitioners,  attention to employees' grievances and facilitate their speedy and amicable
vs. disposition through the use of grievance machinery or any other modes of
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GSIS, respondents. settlement sanctioned by law and existing civil service rules." Two supplements to
the foregoing petition were eventually filed by KMG. The first, … apprised [the
CA] of the supposed fact that its Speaker, Atty. Molina, had been placed under
preventive suspension for 90 days and that the formal charges thus filed will not
DECISION only deprive its members of the privileges and benefits due them but will also
disqualify them from promotion, step increment adjustments and receipt of
GARCIA, J.: monetary benefits, including their 13th month pay and Christmas bonuses. The
second, xxx manifested that, on December 17, 2004, respondent [Garcia] served a
spate of additional formal charges against 230 of KMG's members for their
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Government participation in the aforesaid grievance demonstrations.
Service Insurance System (GSIS) and its President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia
(Garcia, for short) assail and seek to nullify the Decision1 dated June 16, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 87220, as reiterated in its Resolution2 of October 18, 2005 In his December 14, 2004 comment to the foregoing petition, respondent [Garcia]
denying Garcia's motion for reconsideration. averred that the case at bench was filed by an unauthorized representative in view
of the fact that Albert Velasco had already been dropped from the GSIS rolls and,
by said token, had ceased to be a member – much less the President – of KMG.
The recourse is cast against the following setting: Invoking the rule against forum shopping, respondent [Garcia] called [the CA's]
attention to the supposed fact that the allegations in the subject petition merely
A four-day October 2004 concerted demonstration, rallies and en masse walkout waged/held in duplicated those already set forth in two petitions for certiorari and prohibition
front of the GSIS main office in Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, started it all. Forming a huge earlier filed by Albert Velasco …. Because said petitions are, in point of fact,
part of the October 4 to October 7, 2004 mass action participants were GSIS personnel, among pending before this court as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 86130 and 86365, respondent
them members of the herein respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa GSIS ("KMG" or [Garcia] prayed for the dismissal of the petition at bench ….5 (Words in bracket
the "Union"), a public sector union of GSIS rank-and-file employees. Contingents from other added.)
government agencies joined causes with the GSIS group. The mass action's target appeared to
have been herein petitioner Garcia and his management style. While the Mayor of Pasay City It appears that pending resolution by the CA of the KMG petition for prohibition in this case,
allegedly issued a rally permit, the absence of the participating GSIS employees was not the GSIS management proceeded with the investigation of the administrative cases filed. As
covered by a prior approved leave.3 represented in a pleading before the CA, as of May 18, 2005, two hundred seven (207) out of
the two hundred seventy eight (278) cases filed had been resolved, resulting in the exoneration
On or about October 10, 2004, the manager of the GSIS Investigating Unit issued a of twenty (20) respondent-employees, the reprimand of one hundred eighty two (182) and the
memorandum directing 131 union and non-union members to show cause why they should not suspension for one month of five (5).6
be charged administratively for their participation in said rally. In reaction, KMG's counsel,
Atty. Manuel Molina, sought reconsideration of said directive on the ground, among others, On June 16, 2005, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision7 holding that Garcia's "filing of
that the subject employees resumed work on October 8, 2004 in obedience to the return-to- administrative charges against 361 of [KMG's] members is tantamount to grave abuse of
work order thus issued. The plea for reconsideration was, however, effectively denied by the discretion which may be the proper subject of the writ of prohibition." Dispositively, the
filing, on October 25, 2004, of administrative charges against some 110 KMG members for decision reads:
grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition [of KMG] is GRANTED and
What happened next is summarized by the CA in its challenged decision of June 16, 2005, respondent [Winston F. Garcia] is hereby PERPETUALLY ENJOINED from
albeit the herein petitioners would except from some of the details of the appellate court's implementing the issued formal charges and from issuing other formal charges
narration: arising from the same facts and events. 
 SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original) Although the filing of administrative charges against [respondent KMG's] members
is well within [petitioner Garcia's] official [disciplinary] prerogatives, [his] exercise
of the power vested under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291 was tainted with
Unable to accept the above ruling and the purported speculative factual and erroneous legal
arbitrariness and vindictiveness against which prohibition was sought by
premises holding it together, petitioner Garcia sought reconsideration. In its equally assailed
[respondent]. xxx the fact that the subject mass demonstrations were directed
Resolution8 of October 18, 2005, however, the appellate court denied reconsideration of its
against [Garcia's] supposed mismanagement of the financial resources of the GSIS,
decision. 
by and of itself, renders the filing of administrative charges against [KMG's]
member suspect. More significantly, we find the gravity of the offenses and the
Hence, this recourse by the petitioners ascribing serious errors on the appellate court in sheer number of persons … charged administratively to be, at the very least,
granting the petition for prohibition absent an instance of grave abuse of authority on their antithetical to the best interest of the service….
part. 
It matters little that, instead of the 361 alleged by petitioner, only 278 charges were
We resolve to GRANT the petition. actually filed [and] in the meantime, disposed of and of the said number, 20 resulted
to exoneration, 182 to reprimand and 5 to the imposition of a penalty of one month
suspension. Irrespective of their outcome, the severe penalties prescribed for the
It should be stressed right off that the civil service encompasses all branches and agencies of offense with which petitioner's members were charged, to our mind, bespeak of
the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) with bellicose and castigatory reaction …. The fact that most of the employees [Garcia]
original charters, like the GSIS,9 or those created by special law.10 As such, employees of administratively charged were eventually meted with what appears to be a virtual
covered GOCCs are part of the civil service system and are subject to circulars, rules and slap on the wrist even makes us wonder why respondent even bothered to file said
regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on discipline, attendance and charges at all. xxx.
general terms/conditions of employment, inclusive of matters involving self-organization,
strikes, demonstrations and like concerted actions. In fact, policies established on public sector
unionism and rules issued on mass action have been noted and cited by the Court in at least a Alongside the consequences of the right of government employees to form, join or
case.11 Among these issuances is Executive Order (EO) No. 180, series of 1987, providing assist employees organization, we have already mentioned how the broader rights
guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of government employees. Relevant also is of free expression cast its long shadow over the case. xxx we find [petitioner
CSC Resolution No. 021316 which provides rules on prohibited concerted mass actions in the Garcia's] assailed acts, on the whole, anathema to said right which has been aptly
public sector. characterized as preferred, one which stands on a higher level than substantive
economic and other liberties, the matrix of other important rights of our people.
xxx.14 (Underscoring and words in bracket added; citations omitted.) 
There is hardly any dispute about the formal charges against the 278 affected GSIS employees
– a mix of KMG union and non-union members - having arose from their having gone on
unauthorized leave of absence (AWOL) for at least a day or two in the October 4 to 7, 2004 While its decision and resolution do not explicitly say so, the CA equated the right to form
stretch to join the ranks of the demonstrators /rallyists at that time. As stated in each of the associations with the right to engage in strike and similar activities available to workers in the
formal charges, the employee's act of attending, joining, participating and taking part in the private sector. In the concrete, the appellate court concluded that inasmuch as GSIS employees
strike/rally is a transgression of the rules on strike in the public sector. The question that are not barred from forming, joining or assisting employees' organization, petitioner Garcia
immediately comes to the fore, therefore, is whether or not the mass action staged by or could not validly initiate charges against GSIS employees waging or joining rallies and
participated in by said GSIS employees partook of a strike or prohibited concerted mass action. demonstrations notwithstanding the service-disruptive effect of such mass action. Citing what
If in the affirmative, then the denounced filing of the administrative charges would be prima Justice Isagani Cruz said in Manila Public School Teachers Association [MPSTA] v. Laguio,
facie tenable, inasmuch as engaging in mass actions resulting in work stoppage or service Jr.,15 the appellate court declared:
disruption constitutes, in the minimum, the punishable offense of acting prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.12 If in the negative, then such filing would indeed smack of arbitrariness
It is already evident from the aforesaid provisions of Resolution No. 021316 that
and justify the issuance of a corrective or preventive writ. 
employees of the GSIS are not among those specifically barred from forming,
joining or assisting employees organization such as [KMG]. If only for this
Petitioners assert that the filing of the formal charges are but a natural consequence of the ineluctable fact, the merit of the petition at bench is readily discernible.16
service-disrupting rallies and demonstrations staged during office hours by the absenting GSIS
employees, there being appropriate issuances outlawing such kinds of mass action. On the
We are unable to lend concurrence to the above CA posture. For, let alone the fact that it
other hand, the CA, agreeing with the respondent's argument, assumed the view and held that
ignores what the Court has uniformly held all along, the appellate court's position is contrary to
the organized demonstrating employees did nothing more than air their grievances in the
what Section 4 in relation to Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02131617 provides. Besides, the
exercise of their "broader rights of free expression"13 and are, therefore, not amenable to
appellate court's invocation of Justice Cruz's opinion in MPSTA is clearly off-tangent, the good
administrative sanctions. For perspective, following is what the CA said:
Justice's opinion thereat being a dissent. It may be, as the appellate court urged¸ that the
freedom of expression and assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of adding that public employees going on disruptive unauthorized absences to join concerted
grievances stand on a level higher than economic and other liberties. Any suggestion, however, mass actions may be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
about these rights as including the right on the part of government personnel to strike ought to
be, as it has been, trashed. We have made this abundantly clear in our past determinations. For
Significantly, 1986 Constitutional Commission member Eulogio Lerum, answering in the
instance, in Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment,18 a case
negative the poser of whether or not the right of government employees to self-organization
decided under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution, an en banc Court declared that it would be
also includes the right to strike, stated: 
unfair to allow employees of government corporations to resort to concerted activity with the
ever present threat of a strike to wring benefits from Government. Then came the 1987
Constitution expressly guaranteeing, for the first time, the right of government personnel to When we proposed this amendment providing for self organization of government
self-organization19 to complement the provision according workers the right to engage in employees, it does not mean that because they have the right to organize, they have
"peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."20 also the right to strike. That is a different matter. xxx25

It was against the backdrop of the aforesaid provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the Court With the view we take of the events that transpired on October 4-7, 2004, what respondent's
resolved Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals.21 In it, we held, citing MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr.,22 that members launched or participated in during that time partook of a strike or, what contextually
employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized amounts to the same thing, a prohibited concerted activity. The phrase "prohibited concerted
stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize is limited to the activity" refers to any collective activity undertaken by government employees, by themselves
formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.  or through their employees' organization, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service
disruption in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise; it
includes mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar nature.26 Indeed, for four straight
Jacinto v. Court of Appeals23 came next and there we explained: 
days, participating KMG members and other GSIS employees staged a walk out and waged or
participated in a mass protest or demonstration right at the very doorstep of the GSIS main
Specifically, the right of civil servants to organize themselves was positively office building. The record of attendance27 for the period material shows that, on the first day
recognized in Association of Court of Appeals Employees vs. Ferrer-Caleja. But, as of the protest, 851 employees, or forty eight per cent (48%) of the total number of employees in
in the exercise of the rights of free expression and of assembly, there are the main office (1,756) took to the streets during office hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,28 leaving
standards for allowable limitations such as the legitimacy of the purpose of the the other employees to fend for themselves in an office where a host of transactions take place
association, [and] the overriding considerations of national security . . . . every business day. On the second day, 707 employees left their respective work stations,
while 538 participated in the mass action on the third day. A smaller number, i.e., 306
employees, but by no means an insignificant few, joined the fourth day activity. 
As regards the right to strike, the Constitution itself qualifies its exercise with the
provision "in accordance with law." This is a clear manifestation that the state may,
by law, regulate the use of this right, or even deny certain sectors such right. To say that there was no work disruption or that the delivery of services remained at the usual
Executive Order 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right of level of efficiency at the GSIS main office during those four (4) days of massive walkouts and
government workers to organize, for instance, implicitly endorsed an earlier CSC wholesale absences would be to understate things. And to place the erring employees beyond
circular which "enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government the reach of administrative accountability would be to trivialize the civil service rules, not to
officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walkouts mention the compelling spirit of professionalism exacted of civil servants by the Code of
and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. 29
disruption of public service" by stating that the Civil Service law and rules
governing concerted activities and strikes in government service shall be observed.
The appellate court made specific reference to the "parliament of the streets," obviously to lend
(Emphasis and words in bracket added; citations omitted)
concurrence to respondent's pretension that the gathering of GSIS employees on October 4-7,
2004 was an "assembly of citizens" out only to air grievances, not a striking crowd. According
And in the fairly recent case of Gesite v. Court of Appeals,24 the Court defined the limits of the to the respondent, a strike presupposes a mass action undertaken to press for some economic
right of government employees to organize in the following wise:  demands or secure additional material employment benefits. 

It is relevant to state at this point that the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that We are not convinced. 
employees in the public service may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts,
and other forms of mass action that will lead in the temporary stoppage or
In whatever name respondent desires to call the four-day mass action in October 2004, the
disruption of public service. The right of government employees to organize is
stubborn fact remains that the erring employees, instead of exploring non-crippling activities
limited to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the right
during their free time, had taken a disruptive approach to attain whatever it was they were
to strike,
specifically after. As events evolved, they assembled in front of the GSIS main office building
during office hours and staged rallies and protests, and even tried to convince others to join from the service for the offense as indicating a strong and clear case of grave abuse of authority
their cause, thus provoking work stoppage and service-delivery disruption, the very evil sought to justify the issuance of a writ of prohibition. 
to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government personnel.30
The appellate court faulted petitioner Garcia for not first taping existing grievance machinery
The Court can concede hypothetically that the protest rally and gathering in question did not and other modes of settlement agreed upon in the GSIS-KMG Collective Negotiations
involve some specific material demand. But then the absence of such economic-related Agreement (CAN) before going full steam ahead with his formal charges.34
demand, even if true, did not, under the premises, make such mass action less of a prohibited
concerted activity. For, as articulated earlier, any collective activity undertaken by government
The Court can plausibly accord cogency to the CA's angle on grievance procedure but for the
employees with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption in order to realize
fact that it conveniently disregarded what appears to be the more relevant provision of the
their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise, is a prohibited concerted mass
CNA. We refer to Article VI which reads:
action31 and doubtless actionable administratively. Bangalisan even went further to say the
following: "[i]n the absence of statute, public employees do not have the right to engage in
concerted work stoppages for any purpose." The GSIS Management and the KMG have mutually agreed to promote the
principle of shared responsibility … on all matters and decisions affecting the
rights, benefits and interests of all GSIS employees …. Accordingly, … the parties
To petitioner Garcia, as President and General Manager of GSIS, rests the authority and
also mutually agree that the KMG shall not declare a strike nor stage any concerted
responsibility, under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove,
action which will disrupt public service and the GSIS management shall not
suspend or otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause.32 At bottom then, petitioner Garcia,
lockout employees who are members of the KMG during the term of this
by filing or causing the filing of administrative charges against the absenting participants of the
agreement. GSIS Management shall also respect the rights of the employees to air
October 4-7, 2004 mass action, merely performed a duty expected of him and enjoined by law.
their sentiments through peaceful concerted activities during allowable hours,
Regardless of the mood petitioner Garcia was in when he signed the charge sheet, his act can
subject to reasonable office rules ....35 (Underscoring added)
easily be sustained as legally correct and doubtless within his jurisdiction. 

If the finger of blame, therefore, is to be pointed at someone for non-exhaustion of less

It bears to reiterate at this point that the GSIS employees concerned were proceeded against -
confrontational remedies, it should be at the respondent union for spearheading a concerted
and eventually either exonerated, reprimanded or meted a one-month suspension, as the case
mass action without resorting to available settlement mechanism. As it were, it was KMG,
may be - not for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition for redress of
under Atty. Alberto Velasco, which opened fire first. That none of the parties bothered to avail
grievance, but for engaging in what appeared to be a prohibited concerted activity. Respondent
of the grievance procedures under the GSIS-KMG CNA should not be taken against the GSIS.
no less admitted that its members and other GSIS employees might have disrupted public
At best, both GSIS management and the Union should be considered as in pari delicto. 
service.33

With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss at length the legal
To be sure, arbitrariness and whimsical exercise of power or, in fine, grave abuse of discretion
standing of Alberto Velasco to represent the herein respondent union and to initiate the
on the part of petitioner Garcia cannot be simplistically inferred from the sheer number of
underlying petition for prohibition. Suffice it to state that Velasco, per Joint Resolution No. 04-
those charged as well as the gravity or the dire consequences of the charge of grave misconduct
10-01 approved on October 5, 2004 by the KMG Joint Executive-Legislative Assembly, had
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as the appellate court made it to
ceased to be member, let alone president, of the KMG, having previously been dropped from
appear. The principle of accountability demands that every erring government employee be
the rolls of GSIS employees.36 While the dropping from the rolls is alleged to have been the
made answerable for any malfeasance or misfeasance committed. And lest it be overlooked,
subject of a CA-issued temporary restraining order (TRO), the injunction came after Atty.
the mere filing of formal administrative case, regardless of the gravity of the offense charged,
Velasco had in fact been separated from the service and it appears that the TRO had already
does not overcome the presumptive innocence of the persons complained of nor does it shift
expired. 
the burden of evidence to prove guilt of an administrative offense from the complainant. 

As a final consideration, the Court notes or reiterates the following relevant incidents
Moreover, the Court invites attention to its holding in MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr., a case involving
surrounding the disposition of the case below:
over 800 public school teachers who took part in mass actions for which the then Secretary of
Education filed administrative complaints on assorted charges, such as gross misconduct. Of
those charged, 650 were dismissed and 195 suspended for at least six (6) months The Court, 1. The CA had invoked as part of its ratio decidendi a dissenting opinion
however, did not consider the element of number of respondents thereat and/or the dire in MPSTA, even going to the extent of describing as "instructive and timely" a
consequences of the charge/s as fatally vitiating or beclouding the bona fides of the Secretary portion, when the majority opinion thereat, which the appellate court ignored, is the
of Education's challenged action. Then as now, the Court finds the filing of charges against a controlling jurisprudence.
large number of persons and/or the likelihood that they will be suspended or, worse, dismissed
 2. The CA gave prominence to dispositions and rattled off holdings37 of the Court,
which appropriately apply only to strikes in the private industry labor sector, and
utilized the same as springboard to justify an inference of grave abuse of discretion.
On the other hand, it only gave perfunctory treatment if not totally ignored
jurisprudence that squarely dealt with strikes in the public sector, as if the right to
strike given to unions in private corporations/entities is necessarily applicable to
civil service employees.

3. As couched, the assailed CA decision perpetually bars respondent Garcia – and

necessarily whoever succeeds him as GSIS President – not only from implementing
the formal charges against GSIS employees who participated in the October 4 - 7,
2004 mass action but also from issuing other formal charges arising from the same
events. The injunction was predicated on a finding that grave abuse of discretion
attended the exercise of petitioner Garcia's disciplinary power vested him under
Section 45 of RA 8291.38 At bottom then, the assailed decision struck down as a
nullity, owing to the alleged attendant arbitrariness, not only acts that have already
been done, but those yet to be done. In net effect, any formal charge arising from
the October 4-7, 2004 incident is, under any and all circumstances, prejudged as
necessarily tainted with arbitrariness to be slain at sight. 

The absurdities and ironies easily deducible from the foregoing situations are not lost on the
Court. 

We close with the observation that the assailed decision and resolution, if allowed to remain
undisturbed, would likely pave the way to the legitimization of mass actions undertaken by
civil servants, regardless of their deleterious effects on the interest of the public they have
sworn to serve with loyalty and efficiency. Worse still, it would permit the emergence of a
system where public sector workers are, as the petitioners aptly put it, "immune from the
minimum reckoning for acts that [under settled jurisprudence] are concededly unlawful." This
aberration would be intolerable. 

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals

are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the writ of prohibition issued by that court
is NULLIFIED.

No Cost.

SO ORDERED. 

Puno, J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Corona, J.,  On Leave.