Page 1 of 6

DCWD vs Aranjunez DCWD primarily contends that CSC and the Court of
Appeals erred in ruling that the concerted mass action on 9
Facts: November 2007 is not prohibited under Resolution No.
021316.
Petitioner Davao City Water District (DCWD)... is a
government-owned and controlled corporation in Davao City DCWD relies on Resolution No. 021316, which states:

The private respondents Section 6. Permissible Concerted Mass Action. - A concerted

activity or mass action done outside of government office
(Aranjuez, et al.) are officers and members of Nagkahiusang hours shall not be deemed a prohibited concerted activity or
Mamumuo sa Davao City Water District mass action within the contemplation of this omnibus rules
provided the... same shall not occasion or result in the
(NAMADACWAD). disruption of work or service

They were charged with several administrative cases due to Ruling:

acts committed during the anniversary celebration of DCWD
such as wearing of t-shirts with inscriptions and posting of The Court finds no merit in the petition
bond papers outside the designated places. The inscriptions
and postings bore... employees' grievances. DCWD argues that since the concerted or mass action was
done within government office hours, such act was not
members and officers of NAMADACWAD have been staging permissible
pickets in front of the DCWD Office during their lunch
breaks to air their grievances about the non-payment of Notably, however, a prohibited concerted mass action is
their Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives defined not in Sec. 6 of Resolution No. 021316 but in Sec. 5
and... their opposition to DCWD's privatization and
proposed One Hundred Million Peso Loan. Section 5. Definition of Prohibited Concerted Mass Action. -
As used in this Omnibus Rules, the phrase "prohibited
GM Gamboa issued an Office Memorandum addressed to all concerted activity or mass action" shall be understood to
department managers concerning the different activities that refer to any collective activity undertaken by government
would take place during DCWD's then upcoming employees, by... themselves or through their employees
anniversary celebration... the officers and members of organizations, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or
NAMADACWAD held an Emergency General Assembly and service disruption in order to realize their demands of force
they agreed to wear NAMADACWAD t-shirts with concession, economic or otherwise, from their respective
inscriptions stating, "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. agencies or the government.
Braganza Pahawa Na!" on the day of the anniversary
Without the intent at work stoppage or service disruption,
As a consequence of their actions, GM Gamboa sent a the concerted activity is not prohibited.
Memorandum... requiring them to explain the reasons for
the attire they wore... the officers and members explained It is clear that the collective activity of joining the fun run in
that the Memorandum only required the employees to wear t-shirts with inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to effect
any sports attire, though theirs were with additional work stoppage or disrupt the service
inscriptions containing grievances. They countered that the
As pointed out by the respondents, they followed the advice
inscriptions were but manifestations of their... constitutional
of GM Gamboa "to be there" at the fun run.
rights of free speech and freedom.of expression.
Respondents joined, and did not disrupt the fun run. They
GM Gamboa filed formal charges against the officers and
were in sports attire that they were allowed, nay required, to
members of NAMADACWAD
wear. Else, government employees would be deprived of their
After giving those concerned the opportunity to explain constitutional right to freedom of expression.[40] This, then,
through several hearings and submission of additional being the... fact, we have to rule against the findings of both
evidence... the Hearing Committee... filed on 14 March 2008 the CSC and Court of Appeals that the wearing of t-shirts
its Consolidated Resolution and with grievance inscriptions constitutes as a violation of
Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.
Recommendation finding the officers and members of the
NAMADACWAD guilty as charged with penalties ranging More importantly we need to refer to GSIS v. Villaviza (GSIS
from suspension to dismissal case).[41] It was there ruled that the acts of GSIS employees
wearing similarly colored shirts while attending a public
GM Gamboa issued several Orders[17] adopting the hearing inside the GSIS Office, with clenching of fists and
recommendation submitted by the Hearing Committee orating... against the then President Winston Garcia, were
not constitutive of a prohibited activity but were only an
Aranjuez, et al., filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideratio... exercise of their constitutional freedom of expression
the Motion was denied by DCWD.
DCWD also found that Cagula and the rest of the officials
Aranjuez, et al., filed an appeal before the CSC violated MC No. 33

CSC issued a Resolution[23] partly granting the DCWD also argues that a violation of this circular
consolidated appeal and held that the collective act of constitutes as a serious violation of CSC Rules as the
respondents in wearing t-shirts with grievance inscriptions circular is a CSC-issued Memorandum and not... just a
during office hours was not within the ambit of the mere issuance of DCWD.
definition of... prohibited mass action punishable under CSC
Resolution 021316 since there was no intent to cause work CSC issued MC No. 33 in recognition of the rights of the
stoppage. government employees to air their grievances balanced by
the delivery of services to the public which should not be
Aggrieved, DCWD filed a Petition for Review under Rules 43 prejudiced
before the Court of Appeals
MC No. 33 sets down rules governing the posting of posters
In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto[25] the and other similar materials within... the premises of
resolution of CSC. government agencies

Issues: Clearly, the DCWD Office Memorandum hews close and

faithfully to MC No. 33. It is a reasonable rule issued by the
DCWD heads of the agencies in order to regulate posting of
grievances of the employees.
DCWD contends that the appeal of Aranjuez, et al., should
have been dismissed by the CSC for non-compliance with It is correct to conclude that those who enter government
Section 46 of CSC Resolu service are subjected to a different degree of limitation on
their freedom to speak their mind; however, it is not
Resolution tantamount to the relinquishment of their constitutional
 Page 2 of 6

right of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens... just by In view of this, everybody is expected to be there except only
reason of their employment. those who are assigned as a skeletal force. All carpool
vehicles are also enjoined to proceed at the said area. The
a citizen who accepts public employment "must accept participants are free to wear any sports attire. Further, you
certain limitations on his or her freedom." But there are are advised to sign in the attendance sheet provided by the
some rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty that HRD.3
they cannot be bargained away in a... contract for public
employment. It is the Court's responsibility to ensure that
citizens are not deprived of these fundamental rights by On 8 November 2007, the officers and members of
virtue of working for the government. NAMADACWAD held an Emergency General Assembly and
they agreed to wear NAMADACWAD t-shirts with
Apparently, DCWD, not satisfied by the CSC ruling that a inscriptions stating, "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir.
violation of the memorandum is punishable with reprimand, Braganza Pahawa Na!" on the day of the anniversary.4
argues that what occurred was a serious violation implying
that a higher penalty is warranted. Came the anniversary, officers and members sported t-shirts
with inscriptions "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza
Under Section 52 (C) (3), Rule IV of Resolution No. Pahawa Na!" at the beginning of the Fun Run at
991936,[48] violation of reasonable office rules and VictoriaPlaza at around 6:30 in the morning and continued
regulations is punishable with reprimand on the first offense to wear the same inside the premises of the DCWD office
and suspension ranging from one to thirty days for the during the office hours. Also, one of the members of the
second offense. Board of Directors of NAMADACWAD Gregorio S. Cagula
(Cagula), with the help of some of its members, attached
a violation of an office memorandum, which was issued as
similar inscriptions and posters of employees’ grievances to
an internal rule to regulate the area for posting of grievances
a post in the motor pool area, an area not among the
inside the office premise, is only a light offense punishable
officially designated places5 for posting of grievances as
by... reprimand.
prescribed by DCWD’s Office Memorandum6 dated 8
February 1996 and pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 33,7 Series of 1994 (MC No. 33).8

As a consequence of their actions, GM Gamboa sent a

DCWD vs Aranjunez Memorandum dated 14 November 2007 addressed to the
officers and members of NAMADACWAD, requiring them to
explain the reasons for the attire they wore during the
The Facts anniversary celebration. Through a collective letter dated 19
November 2007, the officers and members explained that
the Memorandum only required the employees to wear any
Petitioner Davao City Water District(DCWD) is a
sports attire, though theirs were with additional inscriptions
government-owned and controlled corporation in Davao City
containing grievances. They countered that the inscriptions
represented by its General Manager Engr. Rodora N.
were but manifestations of their constitutional rights of free
Gamboa (GM Gamboa). The private respondents, namely,
speech and freedom of expression.9
Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Gregorio S. Cagula, Celestino A.
Bondoc, Danilo L.Buhay, Pedro E. Alcala, Joseph A. Valdez,
Tito V. Sabangan,Marcelino B. Anino, Juanito C. Pansacala, On 23 November 2007, another Memorandum was sent to
Joemarie B. Alba, Antero M. Ymas, Rolando L. Largo, the officers of NAMADACWAD requiring them to explain
Reneboy U. Esteban, Manuel B. Libang, Romeorico A. within 72-hours why they should not be held liable for the
Llanos, Arthur C. Bachiller, Socrates V. Corcuera, Alejandro actions committed by Cagula.10
C. Pichon, Graciano A . Moncada, Rolando K. Escorial, Noel
A. Dagale, Emilio S. Molina, Sherwin S. Solamo, Fulgencio I.
Finding prima facie case against them, GM Gamboa filed
Dyguazo, Gualberto S. Pagatpat, Joseph B. Artajo,
formal charges against the officers and members of
Felixberto Q. Obenza, Florante A. Ferraren, Elsa A. Elorde,
NAMADACWAD as follow:
Carlos P. Morre, James Aquilino M. Coloma, Joaquin O.
Cadorna, Jr., Lorna M. Maxino, Romulo A. Reyes, Noel G.
Legaspi, Eleanor R. Lamoste, WelmerE. Crasco, Delio T. 1. For DCWD Administrative Case No. 34-2007
Olaer, Vicente R. Masucol, Ireneo A. Cubal, Edwin A. dela against the officials of NAMADACWAD for violation
Peña, Jimmy A. Trocio, Wilfredo L. Torreon, Alejandrito of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules of Serious
M.Alo, Raul S. Saga, Joselito P. Riconalla, Trisebal Q. Nature defined under Section 46 [12], Book V of
Aguilar, Arman N. Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C. Gunting Executive Order No. 292,11 in relation to Rule IV,
(Aranjuez, et al.) are officers and members of Nagkahiusang Section 52 B [4] of the Civil Service Resolution No.
Mamumuo sa Davao City Water District (NAMADACWAD). 99193612 dated August 31, 1999 and Civil Service
They were charged with several administrative cases due to Resolution No. 02131613 dated October 11, 2002
acts committed during the anniversary celebration of DCWD and MC No. 33 dated October 21, 1994.14
such as wearing of t-shirts with inscriptions and posting of
bond papers outside the designated places. The inscriptions
2. For DCWD Administrative Case Nos. 11-2007 to
and postings bore employees’ grievances.
33-2007 and 35-2007 to 44-2007 involving the
individual members of NAMADACWAD for violation
The records show that as early as 16 May 2007, the of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules of Serious
members and officers of NAMADACWAD have been staging Nature defined under Section 46 [12], Book V of
pickets in front of the DCWD Office during their lunch Executive Order No. 292,15 in relation to Rule IV,
breaks to air their grievances about the non-payment of Section 52 B [4] of the Civil Service Resolution No.
their Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives and 991936 dated August 31, 1999 and Civil Service
their opposition to DCWD’s privatization and proposed One Resolution No. 021316 dated October 11, 2002.
Hundred Million Peso Loan.
After giving those concerned the opportunity to
On 31 October 2007, GM Gamboa issued an Office explain through several hearings and submission
Memorandum addressed to all department managers of additional evidence, the Hearing Committee,
concerning the different activities that would take place through the authority given by DCWD to hear the
during DCWD’s then upcoming anniversary celebration. The administrative charges, filed on 14 March 2008 its
Memorandum reads: Consolidated Resolution and Recommendation
finding the officers and members of the
NAMADACWAD guilty as charged with penalties
Please be informed that the opening activities of our 34th
ranging from suspension to dismissal from service
anniversary this coming 09 November 2007 are the
with all accessory penalties under the CSC Law
motorcade and the fun run. The assembly area will be at the
and Rules.16
Victoria Plaza Mall parking, in front of Cynthia’s Lechon
Hauz, 6:00 o’clock in the morning.
On 19 March 2008, GM Gamboa issued several
Orders17 adopting the recommendation submitted by the
 Page 3 of 6

Hearing Committee but modifying some of the corresponding 2. As to officers Gualberta S. Pagatpat, Joseph A.
penalties in view of mitigating circumstances such as first Artalo, Felixberto Q. Obenza, Florante A. Ferraren,
infractionand substantial justice. However, three officials Elsa A. Ilorde, Carlos P. Morre, James Aquilino M.
namely Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Cagula and Celestino A. Coloma, Joacquin O. Cadorna, Jr., Lorna M.
Bondoc were penalized with dismissal from the service for Maximo, Romulo A. Reyes, Noel G.Legazpi, Eleanor
the reason that the infraction was the second administrative R. Lamoste, Welmer E. Crasco, Delio T. Olaer,
offense of serious nature.18 Vicente R. Masucol, Ireneo Cubal, Rodrigo L.
Aranjuez, Gregorio S. Cagula and Celestino A.
Bondoc, the penalty of reprimand and strong
Aggrieved, Aranjuez, et al., filed an Urgent Motion for
warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt
Reconsideration19 with Prayer to Suspend the Immediate
with severely.
Execution of the Orders dated 19 March 2008. The Motion
for Reconsideration was thereafter submitted for resolution
after the Hearing Committee waived the filing of a Comment. 3. As to members Edwin A. dela Peña, Jummy A.
On 17 April 2008, the Motion was denied by DCWD. Trocio, Wilfredo A. Torreon, Alejandrito M. Alo,
Raul S. Saga, Joselito P. Riconalla, Trisebal Q.
Aguilar,Arman L. Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C.
On 2 May 2008, Aranjuez, et al., filed an appeal before the
Gunting, they are likewise found guilty of the
CSC bringing up, among other issues, the violation of their
offense of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and
constitutional rights to assemble and petition for redress of
Regulations but are not meted a penalty
grievances.20
considering that they are casual employees whose
renewal of appointments were held in abeyance.24
In its Comment, DCWD defended the Orders on the basis of
Section 6 of CSC Resolution No. 021316 21 which provides
Aggrieved, DCWD filed a Petition for Review under Rules 43
that the concerted activity like the participation of the
before the Court of Appeals alleging procedural and
officers and employees during the fun run wearing t-shirts
substantive infirmities of the CSC Resolution.
with inscriptions was prohibited because it was done during
office hours. Moreover, the act of Cagula in posting papers
with grievances outside the designated areas was a clear The Court of Appeals’ Decision
violation of MC No. 33 in relation to 8 February 1996 Office
Memorandum. It was submitted that due to Cagula’s
In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto 25 the
membership in the Board of Directors of NAMADACWAD,
resolution of CSC.
the other officers were solidarily responsible for his
actions.22
The appellate court disagreed with the contention of DCWD
that there was a violation of any provision of Resolution No.
CSC Resolution
021316 in this wise:

On 14 January 2009, CSC issued a Resolution23 partly

As correctly observed by the Civil Service Commission, the
granting the consolidated appeal and held that the collective
act of respondents in sporting a t-shirt with the inscription
act of respondents in wearing t-shirts with grievance
"CNA INCENTIVE IHATAG NA, DIRECTOR
inscriptions during office hours was not within the ambit of
BRAGANZA,PAHAWA NA!" during the fun run and even
the definition of prohibited mass action punishable under
inside the office premises hardly qualifies as a prohibited
CSC Resolution 021316 since there was no intent to cause
concerted mass action under CSC Resolution No. 021316.
work stoppage. However, though not prohibited under the
Resolution, the act was considered as an offense punishable
under "Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and xxxx
Regulations." CSC further ruled that Cagula’s act of posting
of grievances outside the designated areas was a clear
To say the least, Section 5 of Resolution No. 01316 provides
violation of MC No. 33. By reason of Cagula’s position, the
a specific guideline as to what constitutes a prohibited
other officers of NAMADACWAD were considered as having
concerted activity. A prohibited concerted activity must be
agreed and conspired to commit the said act and as such
one undertaken by government employees, by themselves or
are as liable as Cagula.
through their association, with the intent of effecting work
stoppage or service disruption, in order to realize their
On the other hand, and contrary to the assertions of DCWD, demands or force concessions. In the case at hand, we can
the violations committed by the private respondents are not readily observe that respondent’s participation in the fun
serious in nature due to the lack of any abusive, vulgar, run, as well as their behavior inside the premises of DCWD
defamatory or libelous language. The dispositive portion office during the regular working hours of that day indicate
reads: a complete absence of any intention on their part to effect a
work stoppage or disturbance. In fact, as attested by both
parties, all the respondents participated with the planned
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Appeal filed by Rodrigo L.
activities and festivities on that day.26
Aranjuez, et al. is PARTLY GRANTED. The Orders dated
March 19, 2008 issued by the General Manager Rodora N.
Gamboa finding appellants guilty of Violation of Existing The appellate court was likewise in agreement with the CSC
Civil Service Law and Rules of Serious Nature (Section 46 which considered as simple violation of office rules the
[12] Book V of Executive Order No. 292, in relation to Rule posting of banners outside the designated posting areas by
IV, Section 52 B [4] of the CSC Resolution No. 991936 dated Cagula. Also like the CSC, it ruled that such offense is not
August 31, 1999 and CSC Resolution No. 021316 dated punishable with the penalty of dismissal.
October 11, 2002 and CSC MC No. 33 dated October 21,
1994), are hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, appellants are
The DCWD is now before us still with its basic arguments,
hereby found liable for Violation of Reasonable Office Rules
though rephrased:
and Regulations and are meted the following penalties, to
wit:
I.
1. As to members Danilo Buhay, Pedro E. Alcala,
Joseph A. Valdez, Tito V. Sabangan, Marcelino B. The court a quo failed to rule on the issue whether or not
Anino, Juanito C. Pansacala, Joemarie B. Alba, the respondents’ Consolidated Appeal filed before the CSC
Antero M. Ymas, Rolando L. Largo, Reneboy U. was sufficient in form and substance.
Esteban, Manuel B. Libang, Romeorico A. Llanos,
Arthur C. Bachiller, Socrates V. Corcuera,
II.
Alejandro C. Pichon, Graciano A. Moncada,
Rolando Escorial, Noel A. Dagale, Emilio S. Molina,
Sherwin S. Solano, Danilo L. Buhay and Fulgencio The court a quo erred in ruling that the concerted mass
I. Dyguazo, the penalty of reprimand; action on November 9, 2007 was not prohibited under
Resolution No. 021316.
 Page 4 of 6

III. tenure.30 The decisions of the Civil Service Commission and

the Court of Appeals are squarely supported by Adalim v.
Taniñas31 stating that:
The court a quo erred in ruling that Resolution No. 021316
and MC No. 33 are considered "reasonable office rules and
regulations" within the purview of Section 52 C [3] of the In a number of cases, we upheld the CSC’s decision relaxing
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. its procedural rules to render substantial justice. The
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
themselves provide that administrative investigations shall
IV.
be conducted without strict recourse to the technical rules
of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.
The court a quo erred in ruling that respondents’ act of The case before the CSC involves the security of tenure of
posting white bond papers with union-related inscriptions public employees protected by the Constitution. Public
on their t-shirts while inside the office premises does not interest requires a resolution of the merits of the appeal
constitute serious violation of Civil Service Rules but only a instead of dismissing the same based on a rigid application
violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, despite of the CSC Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, both the CSC
the fact that the said Memorandum Circular No. 33 is a and the CA properly allowed respondent employees’ appeal
CSC-issued Memorandum and not DCWD-issued Rules. despite procedural lapses to resolve the issue on the merits.

V. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,32 this

Court pronounced that technical rules of procedure are not
ends in themselves but primarily devised and designed to
The court a quo erred in ruling that MC No. 33 was not
help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In
violated by respondent Gregorio S. Cagula and the rest of
appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may have to be so
the officials of NAMADACWAD who were charged in DCWD
construed liberally as to meet and advance the cause of
Administrative case No. 34-2007.
substantial justice. While it is desirable that the rules of
procedure are faithfully and even meticulously observed,
VI. courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that
do not really impair the proper administration of justice. If
the rules are intended to ensure the orderly conduct of
The court a quo erred in not taking into consideration that
litigation, it is because of the higher objective they seek
respondents Aranjuez, Cagula and Bondoc were second-time
which is the protection of substantive rights of the
offenders who were previously charged and penalized for
parties.33 Substantial justice, in other words must prevail. In
violation of MC No. 33, thereby justifying their dismissal
Paler,34 We said:
from the service.

When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may

VII.
be relaxed in order to arrive at a just disposition of a case.
The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is to avoid
The court a quo erred when it failed to rule on the issue of unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to
whether the decisions of a government agency, acting as put an end to controversies. A one-day delay as in this case,
Disciplining Authority, in disciplinary cases are immediately does not justify denial of the appeal where there is
executory upon receipt thereof. absolutely no indication of intent to delay as in this case,
does not justify denial of the appeal where there is
The Court's Ruling absolutely no indication of intent to delay justice on the part
of Paler and the pleading is meritorious on its face.

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

We rule in favor of the allowance of respondents’ appeal
because:
Prefatorily, DCWD contends that the appeal of Aranjuez, et
al., should have been dismissed by the CSC for non-
Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to
compliance with Section 46 of CSC Resolution No. 991936,
relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most
particularly their failure to file a notice of appeal, their
mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both
failure to show proof of payment of the appeal fee and the
the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties’
petition’s invalid verification and certification of non-forum
right to an opportunity to be heard.35 (Emphasis supplied)
shopping.

We are not persuaded. Quoting again the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,36 we
pointed out that this Court can temper rigid rules in favor of
substantial justice. We find that pronouncement apt and fit
Though the appeal before the CSC lacked a notice of appeal to this case. Thereby we are not detained by the omissions
as required by CSC Resolution No. 991936 or the Uniform of the respondents in their resort to the CSC, and we thus
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service proceed to the merits of the petitioners’ submissions.
(URACCS),27 the Consolidated Memorandum filed by the
private respondents was enough to be considered as a
Lastly, on the form, we find no merit in the contention that
sufficient compliance with the rules. The Memorandum
Aranjuez was not authorized to sign on behalf of the other
delineates the errors asserted against DCWD and the
petitioners. Pursuant to Union Resolution No. 015-
discussions supporting their arguments. We find merit in
200837 attached as Annex A to the Appellants’ 015-2008
the sufficiency of the Memorandum rather than strict
Consolidated Memorandum dated 26 March 2008, the
compliance in view of the constitutional right of every
officers and members of NAMDACWAD gave Aranjuez a
employee to security of tenure. A more relevant
general authority to represent the organization in all legal
consideration of public interest is accorded whenever the
merits of a case collide with rigid application of the rules.28 matters to be filed for whatever purpose it may serve. From
the general and broad grant of authority, Aranjuez
possessed the specific authority to sign in behalf of his
Further, we find that the Civil Service Commission, the principal the verification and certification against non-forum
agency directly concerned, the ruling of which was upheld shopping required of the petition.
by the Court of Appeals on review, correctly exercised
jurisdiction over respondent’s appeal from the decision of
To the kernel, then.
petitioner DCWD, thereby ruling against, if sub silentio, the
argument of petitioner that the appeal should be dismissed
for lack of proof of payment of appeal. The Civil Service DCWD primarily contends that CSC and the Court of
Commission and the Court of Appeals considered the Appeals erred in ruling that the concerted mass action on 9
procedural issue raised by petitioner as a surmountable bar November 2007 is not prohibited under Resolution No.
to the resolution of the main issue of respondents’ 021316. We disagree. DCWD relies on Resolution No.
constitutional right to free expression29 as amplified with 021316, which states:
specificity by their guaranteed right as workers to peaceful
concerted activity and their entitlement to security of
 Page 5 of 6

Section 6. Permissible Concerted Mass Action.– A concerted mass action proscribed above. CSC even added that their
activity or mass action done outside of government office actuations can be deemed an exercise of their constitutional
hours shall not be deemed a prohibited concerted activity or right to freedom of expression. The CA found no cogent
mass action within the contemplation of this omnibus rules reason to deviate therefrom.
provided the same shall not occasion or result in the
disruption of work or service.38
As defined in Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316
which serves to regulate the political rights of those in the
DCWD argues that since the concerted or mass action was government service, the concerted activity or mass action
done within government office hours, such act was not proscribed must be coupled with the "intent of effecting
permissible, therefore prohibited. Otherwise stated, a work stoppage or service disruption in order to realize their
concerted activity done within the regular government office demands of force concession. "Wearing similarly colored
hours is automatically a violation of Section 6 of the shirts, attending a public hearing at the GSIS-IU office,
Resolution. bringing with them recording gadgets, clenching their fists,
some even badmouthing the guards and PGM Garcia, are
acts not constitutive of an (i) intent to effect work stoppage
Notably, however, a prohibited concerted mass action is
or service disruption and (ii) for the purpose of realizing
defined not in Sec. 6 of Resolution No. 021316 but in Sec. 5
their demands or force concession.
thereof. Thus:

Precisely, the limitations or qualifications found in Section 5

Section 5. Definition of Prohibited Concerted Mass Action. -
of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 are there to temper and
As used in this Omnibus Rules, the phrase ‘‘prohibited
focus the application of such prohibition. Not all collective
concerted activity or mass action’’ shall be understood to
activity or mass undertaking of government employees is
refer to any collective activity undertaken by government
prohibited. Otherwise, we would be totally depriving our
employees, by themselves or through their employees
brothers and sisters in the government service of their
organizations, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or
constitutional right to freedom of expression.43
service disruption in order to realize their demands of force
concession, economic or otherwise, from their respective
agencies or the government. It shall include mass leaves, DCWD also found that Cagula and the rest of the officials
walkouts, pickets and acts of similar nature.39 (Emphasis violated MC No. 33 in relation to 8 February 1996 Office
ours). Memorandum. DCWD also argues that a violation of this
circular constitutes as a serious violation of CSC Rules as
the circular is a CSC-issued Memorandum and not just a
The operative phrases are "any collective activity" and "work
mere issuance of DCWD.
stoppage or service disruption." Without the intent at work
stoppage or service disruption, the concerted activity is not
prohibited. The time and place of the activity are not CSC issued MC No. 33 in recognition of the rights of the
determinative of the prohibition. Whether done within government employees to air their grievances balanced by
government hours, a concerted activity is allowed if it is the delivery of services to the public which should not be
without any intent at work stoppage. prejudiced. MC No. 33 sets down rules governing the posting
of posters and other similar materials within the premises of
government agencies as follows:
We cannot isolate the provision of Section 6 of the
Resolution from definition of prohibited activity in Section 5
thereof. It is erroneous to interpret the provisions in such a 1. All head of agencies are hereby directed to
way that an act not within the circumstances as defined provide specific spaces within their respective
under Section 5 can still be regarded as prohibited if done premises, preferably near the bundy clock, at the
within government hours. To subscribe to the argument of canteen or places normally frequented by
DCWD would in effect expand the definition provided by employees, where employees’ unions/associations
Resolution No. 021316 on what constitutes a prohibited could post their posters.
mass action.
2. x x x.
It is clear that the collective activity of joining the fun run in
t-shirts with inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to effect
3. The hanging of posters and streamers shall only
work stoppage or disrupt the service. As pointed out by the
be allowed in the designated areas.
respondents, they followed the advice of GM Gamboa "to be
there" at the fun run. Respondents joined, and did not
disrupt the fun run. They were in sports attire that they 4. No poster, placard, streamer or other similar
were allowed, nay required, to wear. Else, government materials containing abusive, vulgar, defamatory or
employees would be deprived of their constitutional right to libelous language shall be allowed.
freedom of expression.40 This, then, being the fact, we have
to rule against the findings of both the CSC and Court of
Pursuant to this mandate, the former General Manager of
Appeals that the wearing of t-shirts with grievance
DCWD issued an office memorandum designating the
inscriptions constitutes as a violation of Reasonable Office
bulletin board at the motor pool area below the Office of the
Rules and Regulations.
Purchasing Division and the side of the office building
beside the guard house where the bundy clock is located as
First off and as correctly pointed out by the charged officials the designated areas for posting of grievances.44Clearly, the
and members in their 19 November 2007 Reply Letter to DCWD Office Memorandum hews close and faithfully to MC
DCWD, they did not violate the 31 October 2007 Office No. 33. It is a reasonable rule issued by the heads of the
Memorandum issued by GM Gamboa relating to the proper agencies in order to regulate posting of grievances of the
attire to be worn during the fun run. The Office employees.
Memorandum was clear in its order that the participants are
free to wear any sports attire during the event. To reiterate,
It is correct to conclude that those who enter government
the t-shirts they wore fall within the description of "any
service are subjected to a different degree of limitation on
sports attire" that the Memorandum allowed to be worn.
their freedom to speak their mind; however, it is not
tantamount to the relinquishment of their constitutional
More importantly we need to refer to GSIS v. Villaviza (GSIS right of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by
case).41 It was there ruled that the acts of GSIS employees reason of their employment.45 Unarguably, a citizen who
wearing similarly colored shirts while attending a public accepts public employment "must accept certain limitations
hearing inside the GSIS Office, with clenching of fists and on his or her freedom." But there are some rights and
orating against the then President Winston Garcia, were not freedoms so fundamental to liberty that they cannot be
constitutive of a prohibited activity but were only an exercise bargained away in a contract for public employment. It is
of their constitutional freedom of expression.42 We repeat: the Court’s responsibility to ensure that citizens are not
deprived of these fundamental rights by virtue of working for
the government.46
In this case, CSC found that the acts of respondents in
going to the GSIS-IU office wearing red shirts to witness a
public hearing do not amount to a concerted activity or The GSIS case pronounced:
 Page 6 of 6

Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much Section 42. Effect of Filing. — The filing of a motion for
right as any person in the land to voice out their protests reconsideration within the reglementary period of fifteen (15)
against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and days shall stay the execution of the decision sought to be
interests. Civil Service does not deprive them of their reconsidered.53 (Emphasis ours)
freedom of expression. It would be unfair to hold that by
joining the government service, the members thereof have
The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the
renounced or waived this basic liberty. This freedom can be
law. If the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity
reasonably regulated only but can never be taken away.47
as the quoted provision, there is no room for construction or
interpretation. The letter must be taken to mean exactly
In simple paraphrase we say, regulation of the freedom of what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that
expression is not removal of the constitutional right. its mandate is obeyed.54

Apparently, DCWD, not satisfied by the CSC ruling that a The ponente appreciates the concurrence of Justice Marvic
violation of the memorandum is punishable with reprimand, M.V.F. Leonen. No need was seen, though, to add to the
argues that what occurred was a serious violation implying ruling that the present facts limited.
that a higher penalty is warranted.
WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition for review on certiorari.
Under Section 52 (C) (3), Rule IV of Resolution No. Nonetheless, the decision of the CSC which was affirmed in
991936,48 violation of reasonable office rules and regulations toto by the CA is MODIFIED. The finding of administrative
is punishable with reprimand on the first offense and liability of and the penalty of reprimand against the
suspension ranging from one to thirty days for the second NAMADACWAD members namely Danilo L. Buhay, Pedro E.
offense. Alcala, Joseph A. Valdez, Tito V. Sabangan, Marcelino B.
Anino, Juanito C. Pansacala, Joemarie B. Alba, Antero M.
Ymas, Rolando L. Largo, Reneboy U. Esteban, Manuel B.
In Re: Failure of Various Employees to Register their Time of
Libang, Romeorico A. Llanos, Arthur C. Bachiller, Socrates
Arrival and/or Departure from Office in the Chronolog
V. Corcuera, Alejandro C. Pichon, Graciano A. Moncada,
Machine, the charged court employees were penalized for
Rolando K. Escorial, Noel A. Dagale, Emilio S. Molina,
violation of reasonable office rules and regulations due to
Sherwin S. Solamo, and Fulgencio I. Dyguazo are hereby
their violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
36-2001 requiring all employees to register their daily
attendance, in the Chronolog Time Recorder Machine
(CTRM) and in the logbook of their respective offices. The finding of liability against the casual employees namely
Following Resolution No. 991936 that violation of reasonable Edwin A. dela Peña, Jummy A. Trocio, Wilfredo L. Torreon,
rules and regulations is a light offense, the Court penalized Alejandrito M. Alo, Raul S. Saga, Joselito P. Riconalla,
its erring employees with the penalty of reprimand.49 Trisebal Q. Aguilar, Arman N. Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C.
Gunting is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Thus, in line with the civil service rules and jurisprudence,
we conclude that a violation of an office memorandum, As to officers Gualberto S. Pagatpat, Joseph B. Artajo,
which was issued as an internal rule to regulate the area for Felixberto Q. Obenza, Florante A. Ferraren, Elsa A. Elorde,
posting of grievances inside the office premise, is only a light Carlos P. Morre, James Aquilino M. Coloma, Joaquin O.
offense punishable by reprimand. Cadorna, Jr., Lorna M. Maxino, Romulo A. Reyes, Noel G.
Legaspi, Eleanor R.Lamoste, Welmer E. Crasco, Delio T.
Olaer, Vicente R. Masucol, Ireneo Cubal, Rodrigo L.
Rules and regulations are issued to attain harmony, smooth
Aranjuez, Gregorio S. Cagula and Celestino A. Bondoc, the
operation, maximize efficiency and productivity, with the
penalty of reprimand and strong warning that a repetition of
ultimate objective of realizing the functions of particular
the same shall be dealt with severely is hereby AFFIRMED.
offices and agencies of the government.50

SO ORDERED.
On the submissions that the decisions of a government
agency, acting as Disciplining Authority, are immediately
executory upon receipt thereof, we need merely cite Section
37 of the Resolution No. 991936 which clearly provides that:

Section 37. Finality of Decisions. — A decision rendered by

heads of agencies whereby a penalty of suspension for not
more than thirty (30) days or a fine in an amount not
exceeding thirty (30) days' salary is imposed, shall be final
and executory. However, if the penalty imposed is
suspension exceeding thirty (30) days, or fine in an amount
exceeding thirty (30) days salary, the same shall be final and
executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing
a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such
pleading has been filed.51

As distinguished by the law, if the imposed suspension

exceeds thirty days or the fine imposed is in an amount over
thirty-day salary, the decision will only attain finality after
the lapse of the reglementary period in the absence of any
motion for reconsideration or appeal. Penalties within the
30-day threshold are immediately executory penalties.

In this case, the members and officials, except the casual

employees who were not meted with penalty as the renewal
of their employment was held in abeyance, were sanctioned
with penalties ranging from suspension of work from one (1)
month and one (1) day to dismissal from service.52 Evidently,
the finality and execution of the judgment did not take place
after the lapse of the reglementary period because as
previously discussed, the members and officials were able to
file their consolidated appeal in lieu of notice of appeal.

As clear as the provision on the finality of decisions is

Section 42 of Resolution No. 991936 on the effect of motions
for reconsideration.1âwphi1 Thus: