GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F.

GARCIA, in his capacity as GSIS

G.R. No. 170132 December 6, 2006

TOPIC: Right to self-organization

SUMMARY

GSIS President and General Manager Winston Garcia filed 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 stretch to join the ranks of the demonstrators /rallyists at that time. KMG filed a petition for
prohibition against Garcia for filing the administrative cases, claiming that its members should not be made to explain why they
supported their union’s cause, faulting Garcia with disregard of Civil Service Resolution No. 021316, otherwise known as the
Guidelines for Prohibited Mass Action, Section 10 of which exhorts government agencies to "harness all means within their capacity
to accord due regard and attention to employees' grievances and facilitate their speedy and amicable disposition through the use of
grievance machinery or any other modes of settlement sanctioned by law and existing civil service rules." CA granted the petition,
finding that Garcia’s filing of the administrative cases is tantamount to GAD and enjoined him from implementing the formal charges
and issuing other charges based on the same facts and events.

SC ruled that CA erred in granting the petition. KMG members launched or participated in during that time partook of a strike or, what
contextually amounts to the same thing, a prohibited concerted activity [see doctrine 1], which caused work disruption or that the
delivery of services. This is the evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government personnel [see cases
cited by SC in #3 under “issue”] . The absence of economic-related demands, even if true, did not, under the premises, make such
mass action less of a prohibited concerted activity [see doctrine 2].

Garcia, by filing or causing the filing of administrative charges against the absenting participants of the October 4-7, 2004 mass
action, merely performed a duty expected of him and enjoined by law. This act can easily be sustained as legally correct and
doubtless within his jurisdiction. This authority is based on Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove,
suspend or otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause. The GSIS employees concerned were proceeded against - and
eventually either exonerated, reprimanded or meted a one-month suspension, as the case may be - not for the exercise of their right
to assemble peacefully and to petition for redress of grievance, but for engaging in what appeared to be a prohibited concerted
activity.

SC also noted that under the Collective Negotiation Agreement, it is provided that KMG shall not declare a strike nor stage any
concerted action which will disrupt public service and the GSIS management shall not lockout employees. The union is to blame for
spearheading a concerted mass action without resorting to available settlement mechanism. That none of the parties bothered to
avail of the grievance procedures under the GSIS-KMG CNA should not be taken against the GSIS. At best, both GSIS management
and the Union should be considered as in pari delicto.

DOCTRINES
1. The phrase "prohibited concerted activity" refers to any collective activity undertaken by government employees, by
themselves 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.
2. Any collective activity undertaken by government employees with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption
in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise, is a prohibited concerted mass action 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."
3. See cases cited by SC denying government employees/officials the right to strike
4. The mere filing of a formal administrative case, regardless of the gravity of the offense charged, does not overcome the
presumptive innocence of the persons complained of nor does it shift the burden of evidence to prove guilt of an
administrative offense from the complainant.

FACTS
1. Oct 4-7, 2004 - A concerted demonstration was held in front of the GSIS main office. Majority of the participants
were GSIS personnel, among them members of respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa GSIS ("KMG" or
the "Union"), a public sector union of GSIS rank-and-file employees
a. the mass action's target appeared to have been herein petitioner Garcia and his management style. While
the Mayor of Pasay City allegedly issued a rally permit, the absence of the participating GSIS employees
was not covered by a prior approved leave
 2. Oct 10 2004 - GSIS Investigating Unit issued a memorandum directing the 131 union and non-union members to
show cause why they should not be administratively for their participation in said rally.
3. October 25, 2004 - administrative charges against some 110 KMG members for grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service
4. KMG filed a petition for prohibition before CA. Pending the resolution of the petition for prohibition, the GSIS
management proceeded with investigation of the administrative cases.
a. KMG claimed that its members should not be made to explain why they supported their union’s cause,
faulting Garcia with disregard of Civil Service Resolution No. 021316, otherwise known as the Guidelines
for Prohibited Mass Action, Section 10 of which exhorts government agencies to "harness all means
within their capacity to accord due regard and attention to employees' grievances and facilitate their
speedy and amicable disposition through the use of grievance machinery or any other modes of
settlement sanctioned by law and existing civil service rules."
5. CA ruling on the petition for prohibition - GSIS President and General Manager Garcia's "filing of administrative
charges against 361 of [KMG's] members is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion which may be the proper
subject of the writ of prohibition."
a. Garcia is perpetually enjoined from implementing the formal charges and from issuing other formal
charges arising from the same facts and events
6. Garcia filed MR. CA denied MR
7. Hence this Rule 45 petition

ISSUE

W/N the mass action staged by or participated in by said GSIS employees partook of a strike or prohibited
concerted mass action?

YES. Respondent Garcia was acting within his authority when he filed the administrative cases against the KMG
members.
- Basis: Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove, suspend or otherwise discipline
GSIS personnel for cause
- GSIS employees concerned were proceeded against - and eventually either exonerated, reprimanded or
meted a one-month suspension, as the case may be - not for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully
and to petition for redress of grievance, but for engaging in what appeared to be a prohibited concerted
activity. Respondent no less admitted that its members and other GSIS employees might have disrupted public
service.

1. The civil service encompasses all branches and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations (GOCCs) with original charters, like the GSIS,9 or those created by special law.10 As such,
employees of covered GOCCs are part of the civil service system and are subject to circulars, rules an d
regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on discipline, attendance and general terms/conditions
of employment, inclusive of matters involving self-organization, strikes, demonstrations and like concerted actions.
Among these issuances are:
a. Executive Order (EO) No. 180, series of 1987, providing guidelines for the exercise of the right to
organize of government employees.
b. CSC Resolution No. 021316 which provides rules on prohibited concerted mass actions in the public
sector.
2. In the concrete, the appellate court concluded that inasmuch as GSIS employees are not barred from forming,
joining or assisting employees' organization, petitioner Garcia could not validly initiate charges against GSIS
employees waging or joining rallies and demonstrations notwithstanding the service-disruptive effect of such mass
action.
3. SC cited cases where the argument that government employees/officials have the right to strike has been
denied
a. Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment,18 a case decided under the aegis of the 1973
Constitution, an en banc Court declared that it would be 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.
i. Then came the 1987 Constitution expressly guaranteeing, for the first time, the right of government
personnel to self-organization19 to complement the provision according workers the right to engage in
"peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."20
b. MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr. - employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and
unauthorized stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize is limited to the
formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.
c. Jacinto v. CA - Specifically, the right of civil servants to organize themselves was positively recognized in Association
of Court of Appeals Employees vs. Ferrer-Caleja. But, as in the exercise of the rights of free expression and of
 assembly, there are standards for allowable limitations such as the legitimacy of the purpose of the association,
[and] the overriding considerations of national security . . . .
d. 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.
i. Executive Order 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right of government workers to
organize, for instance, implicitly endorsed an earlier CSC circular which "enjoins under pain of
administrative sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging strikes,
demonstrations, mass leaves, walkouts and other forms of mass action which will result in
temporary stoppage or disruption of public service" by stating that the Civil Service law and rules
governing concerted activities and strikes in government service shall be observed.
e. Gesite v. CA - in this jurisdiction is that 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 disruption of public
service.
i. The right of government employees to organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations
only, without including the right to strike, adding that public employees going on disruptive
unauthorized absences to join concerted mass actions may be held liable for conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service.
4. 1986 Constitutional Commission member Eulogio Lerum, answering in the negative the poser of whether or not
the right of government employees to self-organization also includes the right to strike, stated: When we proposed
this amendment providing for self organization of government employees, it does not mean that because they
have the right to organize, they have also the right to strike. That is a different matter.
5. APPLICATION
a. KMG members launched or participated in during that time partook of a strike or, what
contextually amounts to the same thing, a prohibited concerted activity.
i. The phrase "prohibited concerted activity" refers to any collective activity undertaken by
government employees, by themselves 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.
b. Indeed, for four straight 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
office building.
i. The record of attendance27 for the period material shows that, on the first day of the protest, 851 employees,
or forty eight per cent (48%) of the total number of employees in the main office (1,756) took to the streets
during office hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,28 leaving the other employees to fend for themselves in an office
where a host of transactions take place 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.
c. To say that there was no work disruption or that the delivery of services remained at the usual
level of efficiency at the GSIS main office during those four (4) days of massive walkouts and
wholesale absences would be to understate things.
d. And to place the erring employees beyond the reach of administrative accountability would be to
trivialize the civil service rules, not to mention the compelling spirit of professionalism exacted of
civil servants by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. 29
6. CA made specific reference to the "parliament of the streets," obviously to lend 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.
a. According to CA, a strike presupposes a mass action undertaken to press for some economic demands
or secure additional material employment benefits.
b. The stubborn fact remains that the erring employees, instead of exploring non-crippling activities
during their free time, had taken a disruptive approach to attain whatever it was they were
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 their cause, thus
provoking work stoppage and service-delivery disruption, the very evil sought to be forestalled by the
prohibition against strikes by government personnel
7. The absence of such economic-related demand, even if true, did not, under the premises, make such
mass action less of a prohibited concerted activity
a. Any collective activity undertaken by government employees with the intent of effecting work stoppage or
service disruption in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise, is a
prohibited concerted mass action 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."
 8. Petitioner Garcia, by filing or causing the filing of administrative charges against the absenting
participants of the October 4-7, 2004 mass action, merely performed a duty expected of him and enjoined
by law. This act can easily be sustained as legally correct and doubtless within his jurisdiction.
a. This authority is based on Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove,
suspend or otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause
b. GSIS employees concerned were proceeded against - and eventually either exonerated, reprimanded
or meted a one-month suspension, as the case may be - not for the exercise of their right to assemble
peacefully and to petition for redress of grievance, but for engaging in what appeared to be a
prohibited concerted activity. Respondent no less admitted that its members and other GSIS
employees might have disrupted public service.
9. The mere filing of a formal administrative case, regardless of the gravity of the offense charged, does not
overcome the presumptive innocence of the persons complained of nor does it shift the burden of
evidence to prove guilt of an administrative offense from the complainant.
10. To be sure, arbitrariness and whimsical exercise of power or, in fine, grave abuse of discretion on the part of
petitioner Garcia cannot be simplistically inferred from the sheer number of those charged as well as the gravity or
the dire consequences of the charge of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, as the appellate court made it to appear.
a. The Court invites attention to its holding in MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr., a case involving 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.
i. Of those charged, 650 were dismissed and 195 suspended for at least six (6) months The Court,
however, did not consider the element of number of respondents thereat and/or the dire
consequences of the charge/s as fatally vitiating or beclouding the bona fides of the Secretary of
Education's challenged action.
ii. Then as now, the Court finds the filing of charges against a large number of persons and/or the
likelihood that they will be suspended or, worse, dismissed from the service for the offense as
indicating a strong and clear case of grave abuse of authority to justify the issuance of a writ of
prohibition.
11. CA faulted petitioner Garcia for not first taping existing grievance machinery and other modes of settlement
agreed upon in the GSIS-KMG Collective Negotiations Agreement (CAN) before going full steam ahead with his
formal charges
a. SC noted that under the Collective Negotiation Agreement, it is provided that KMG shall not declare a
strike nor stage ant concerted action which will disrupt public service and the GSIS management shall not
lockout employees
b. The union is to blame for spearheading a concerted mass action without resorting to available
settlement mechanism. That none of the parties bothered to avail of the grievance procedures
under the GSIS-KMG CNA should not be taken against the GSIS. At best, both GSIS management
and the Union should be considered as in pari delicto.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

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.