EN BANC
G.R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015
DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, RODORA N. GAMBOA, Petitioner, v. 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, JOEMARIE B. ALBA, ANTERO M. YMAS, ROLANDO L. LARGO, RENEBOY U. ESTEBAN, MANUEL B. LIBANG, ROMEORICO A. LLANOS, ARTHUR C. BACHILLER, SOCRATES V. CORCUERA, ALEJANDRO C. PICHON, GRACIANO A. MONCADA, ROLANDO K. ESCORIAL, NOEL A. DAGALE, EMILIO S. MOLINA, SHERWIN S. SOLAMO, FULGENCIO I. DYGUAZO, GUALBERTO S. PAGATPAT, JOSEPH B. ARTAJO, FELIXBERTO Q. OBENZA, FLORANTE A. FERRAREN, ELSA A. ELORDE, CARLOS P. MORRE, JAMES AQUILINO M. COLOMA, JOAQUIN O. CADORNA, JR., LORNA M. MAXINO, ROMULO A. REYES, NOEL G. LEGASPI, ELEANOR R. LAMOSTE, WELMER E. CRASCO, DELIO T. OLAER, VICENTE R. MASUCOL, IRENEO A. CUBAL, EDWIN A. DELA PENA, JIMMY A. TROCIO, WILFREDO L. TORREON, ALEJANDRITO M. ALO, RAUL S. SAGA, JOSELITO P. RICONALLA, TRISEBAL Q. AGUILAR, ARMAN N. LORENZO, SR. AND PEDRO C. GUNTING, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Please be informed that the opening activities of our 34th anniversary this coming 09 November 2007 are the motorcade and the fun run. The assembly area will be at the Victoria Plaza Mall parking, in front of Cynthia's Lechon Hauz, 6:00 o'clock in the morning.On 8 November 2007, the officers and members of NAMADACWAD held an Emergency General Assembly and they agreed to wear NAMADACWAD t-shirts with inscriptions stating, "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!" on the day of the anniversary.4chanrobleslaw
In view of this, everybody is expected to be there except only those who are assigned as a skeletal force. All carpool vehicles are also enjoined to proceed at the said area. The participants are free to wear any sports attire. Further, you are advised to sign in the attendance sheet provided by the HRD.3
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Appeal filed by Rodrigo L. 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 Civil Service Law and Rules of Serious Nature (Section 46 [12] Book V of Executive Order No. 292, in relation to Rule IV, Section 52 B [4] of the CSC Resolution No. 991936 dated August 31, 1999 and CSC Resolution No. 021316 dated October 11, 2002 and CSC MC No. 33 dated October 21, 1994), are hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, appellants are hereby found liable for Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and are meted the following penalties, to wit:Aggrieved, DCWD filed a Petition for Review under Rules 43 before the Court of Appeals alleging procedural and substantive infirmities of the CSC Resolution.
- As to members Danilo Buhay, Pedro E. 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. Libang, Romeorico A. Llanos, Arthur C. Bachiller, Socrates V. Corcuera, Alejandro C. Pichon, Graciano A. Moncada, Rolando Escorial, Noel A. Dagale, Emilio S. Molina, Sherwin S. Solano, Danilo L. Buhay and Fulgencio I. Dyguazo, the penalty of reprimand;
- As to officers Gualberta S. Pagatpat, Joseph A. Artalo, Felixberto Q. Obenza, Florante A. Ferraren, Elsa A. Horde, Carlos P. Morre, James Aquilino M. Coloma, Joacquin O. Cadorna, Jr., Lorna M. Maximo, Romulo A. Reyes, Noel G. Legazpi, Eleanor R. Lamoste, Welmer E. Crasco, Delio T. Olaer, Vicente R. Masucol, Ireneo Cubal, Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Gregorio S. Cagula and Celestino A. Bondoc, the penalty of reprimand and strong warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with severely.
- As to members Edwin A. dela Pena, Jummy A. Trocio, Wilfredo A. Torreon, Alejandrito M. Alo, Raul S. Saga, Joselito P. Riconalla, Trisebal Q. Aguilar, Arman L. Lorenzo, Sr. and Pedro C. Gunting, they are likewise found guilty of the offense of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations but are not meted a penalty considering that they are casual employees whose renewal of appointments were held in abeyance.24
As correctly observed by the Civil Service Commission, the act of respondents in sporting a t-shirt with the inscription "CNA INCENTIVE IHATAG NA, DIRECTOR BRAGANZA, PAHAWA NA!" during the fun run and even inside the office premises hardly qualifies as a prohibited concerted mass action under CSC Resolution No. 021316.The appellate court was likewise in agreement with the CSC which considered as simple violation of office rules the posting of banners outside the designated posting areas by Cagula. Also like the CSC, it ruled that such offense is not punishable with the penalty of dismissal.
x x x x
To say the least, Section 5 of Resolution No. 01316 provides a specific guideline as to what constitutes a prohibited concerted activity. A prohibited concerted activity must be one undertaken by government employees, by themselves or through their association, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption, in order to realize their demands or force concessions. In the case at hand, we can readily observe that respondent's participation in the fun run, as well as their behavior inside the premises of DCWD office during the regular working hours of that day indicate a complete absence of any intention on their part to effect a work stoppage or disturbance. In fact, as attested by both parlies, all the respondents participated with the planned activities and festivities on that day.26
In a number of cases, we upheld the CSC's decision relaxing its procedural rules to render substantial justice. The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service themselves provide that administrative investigations shall be conducted without strict recourse to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings. The case before the CSC involves the security of tenure of public employees protected by the Constitution. Public interest requires a resolution of the merits of the appeal instead of dismissing the same based on a rigid application of the CSC Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, both the CSC and the CA properly allowed respondent employees' appeal despite procedural lapses to resolve the issue on the merits.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn 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 help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may have to be so construed liberally as to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice. While it is desirable that the rules of procedure are faithfully and even meticulously observed, 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 litigation, it is because of the higher objective they seek which is the protection of substantive rights of the parties.33chanrobleslaw
When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to arrive at a just disposition of a case. The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is to avoid unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. A one-day delay as in this case, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay as in this case, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay justice on the pail of Paler and the pleading is meritorious on its face.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryWe rule in favor of the allowance of respondents' appeal because:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.35 (Emphasis supplied)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 to this case. Thereby we are not detained by the omissions of the respondents in their resort to the CSC, and we thus proceed to the merits of the petitioners' submissions.
Section 6. Permissible Concerted Mass Action. - A concerted activity or mass action done outside of government office hours shall not be deemed a prohibited concerted activity or mass action within the contemplation of this omnibus rules provided the same shall not occasion or result in the disruption of work or service.38DCWD argues that since the concerted or mass action was done within government office hours, such act was not permissible, therefore prohibited. Otherwise stated, a concerted activity done within the regular government office hours is automatically a violation of Section 6 of the Resolution.
Section 5. Definition of Prohibited Concerted Mass Action. - As used in this Omnibus Rules, the phrase "prohibited concerted activity or mass action" shall be understood to refer to any collective activity undertaken by government employees, by themselves or through their employees organizations, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or 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, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar nature.39 (Emphasis ours).chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe operative phrases are "any collective activity" and "work 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 determinative of the prohibition. Whether done within government hours, a concerted activity is allowed if it is without any intent at work stoppage.
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 mass action proscribed above. CSC even added that their actuations can be deemed an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. The CA found no cogent reason to deviate therefrom.DCWD also found that Cagula and the rest of the officials violated MC No. 33 in relation to 8 February 1996 Office 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 mere issuance of DCWD.
As defined in Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 which serves to regulate the political rights of those in the government service, the concerted activity or mass action proscribed must be coupled with the "intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption in order to realize their demands of force concession." Wearing similarly colored shirts, attending a public hearing at the GSIS-IU office, 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 or service disruption and (ii) for the purpose of realizing their demands or force concession.
Precisely, the limitations or qualifications found in Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 are there to temper and focus the application of such prohibition. Not all collective activity or mass undertaking of government employees is prohibited. Otherwise, we would be totally depriving our brothers and sisters in the government service of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.43
Pursuant to this mandate, the former General Manager of DCWD issued an office memorandum designating the bulletin board at the motorpool area below the Office of the Purchasing Division and the side of the office building beside the guard house where the bundy clock is located as the designated areas for posting of grievances.44 Clearly, the DCWD Office Memorandum hews close and faithfully to MC No. 33. It is a reasonable rule issued by the heads of the agencies in order to regulate posting of grievances of the employees.
- All head of agencies are hereby directed to provide specific spaces within their respective premises, preferably near the bundy clock, at the canteen or places normally frequented by employees, where employees' unions/associations could post their posters.
- x x x.
- The hanging of posters and streamers shall only be allowed in the designated areas.
- No poster, placard, streamer or other similar materials containing abusive, vulgar, defamatory or libelous language shall be allowed.
Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right as any person in the land to voice out their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests. Civil Service does not deprive them of their freedom of expression. It would be unfair to hold that by joining the government service, the members thereof have renounced or waived this basic liberty. This freedom can be reasonably regulated only but can never be taken away.47In simple paraphrase we say, regulation of the freedom of expression is not removal of the constitutional right.
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.51As 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 executor penalties.
Section 42. Effect of Filing. — The filing of a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days shall stay the execution of the decision sought to be reconsidered.53 (Emphasis ours)The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. If the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity as the quoted provision, there is no room for construction or interpretation. The letter must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed.54chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
* On Official Leave on 16 June 2015.
** On Official Leave on 16 June 2015.
1 Rule on Civil Procedure, Rule 45.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Angelita A. Gacutan and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 774-791.
3 CA rollo, p. 118.
4 Id. at 119.
5 The designated places pursuant to Office Memorandum dated February 8, 1996 are: (1) The bulletin board at the motor pool area below the Office of the Purchasing Division and (2) the side of the office building beside the guardhouse where the bundy clock is located; id. at 29, 782.
6 Id.
7 Rules to Govern Posting and Hanging Posters, Placards, Streamers and Other Similar Materials; id. at 29-30.
8 Id. at 170.
9 Letter Explanation to the Memorandum; id. at 120.
10 Id. at 160.
11Section 46. Discipline: General Provisions.—(a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process, (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(12) Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules or reasonable office regulations;
12 B. The following are less grave offenses with the corresponding penalties:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary4. Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules of serious nature13 Omnibus Rules on Prohibited Concerted Mass Actions in the Public Sector.
1st offense — Suspension from 1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.
2nd offense — Dismissal
14 CA rollo, pp. 144-145.
15 Book V/Title I/Subtitle A/Chapter 7-Discipline.
16 CA rollo, pp. 144-180.
17 Id. at 181-207.
18 Id. at 204.
19 Id. at 212-217.
20 Id. at 63-114.
21Section 6. Permissible Concerted Mass Action. - A concerted activity or mass action done outside of government office hours shall not be deemed a prohibited concerted activity or mass action within the contemplation of this omnibus rules provided the same shall not occasion or result in the disruption of work or service.
22 CA rollo, pp. 363-394.
23 Id. at 464-482.
24 Id. at 481-482.
25WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED, and the January 14, 2009 Resolution No. 09-0047 rendered by the Civil Service Commission is hereby AFFIRMED in toto; id. at 790.
26 Id. at 785-786.
27Section 46. Perfection of an Appeal. — To perfect an appeal, the appellant shall within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision submit the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarya. Notice of appeal which shall specifically state the date of the decision appealed from and the date of receipt thereof;Failure to comply with any of the above requirements within the reglementary period shall be construed as failure to perfect an appeal and shall cause its dismissal.
b. Three (3) copies of appeal memorandum containing the grounds relied upon for the appeal, together with the certified true copy of the decision, resolution or order appealed from, and certified copies of the documents or evidence;
c. Proof of service of a copy of the appeal memorandum to the disciplining office;
d. Proof of payment of the appeal fee; and
e. A statement or certificate of non-forum shopping.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
28Adalim v. Taniñas, G.R. No. 198682, 10 April 2013, 695 SCRA 648, 656.
29 CONSTITUTION, Article III Bill of Rights, Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
30 CONSTITUTION, Article XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making process affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
31 Supra note 28.
32 343 Phil. 428, 436 (1997).
33GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 163, 174 (1997), citing Mauna v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 97794, 13 May 1994, 232 SCRA 388, 398.
34Commission on Appointments v. Paler, 628 Phil. 26, 36 (2010).
35Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Dando, 614 Phil. 553, 562-563 (2009).
36 Supra.
37 CA rollo, pp. 115-116.
38 Omnibus Rules on Prohibited Concerted Mass Action in the Public Sector.
39 Id.
40 Supra note 29.
41 640 Phil. 18 (2010).
42 Id. at 29.
43 Id. at 29-30.
44 CA rollo, p. 58.
45 Rene B. Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Volume 1, 2006 ed. citing Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, 385 US 589, 605-606, 1967.
46Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488; 180 L. Ed. 2d 408; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4564; 79 U.S.L.W. 4538; 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 481; 190 L.R.R.M. 3217; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1176, 20 June 2011 citing Connick, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, 385 U.S. 589, 605-606, 87 S. Ct. 675, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967) and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006).
47GSIS v. Villaviza, supra note 41, at 30.
48 Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
49In RE: Failure of Various Employees to Register their Time of Arrival and/or Departure From Office in the Chronolog Machine, 646 Phil. 18 (2010).
50 Id.
51 Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
52 CA rollo, pp. 181-208.
53 Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
54Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 196907, 13 March 2013, 693 SCRA 456, 464, citing Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court and BF Homes, Inc., 378 Phil. 10, 22 (1999).
LEONEN, J.:
It is correct to conclude that those who enter government service are subjected to a different degree of limitation on their freedom to speak their mind; however, it is not tantamount to the relinquishment of their constitutional right of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of their employment. Unarguably, a citizen who accepts public employment "must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom." But there are some rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty that 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 virtue of working for the government.Freedom to express one's views enjoys a level of primacy among our constitutional guarantees, but it has never been considered to be absolute and immune from reasonable regulation. However, there is always a higher degree of judicial review of regulation that affects speech to ensure, among others, that it does not amount to a disguised form of censorship or that its exercise does not burden the same exercise of the same rights by others. Even civil service regulations should hew closely to the parameters of the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.The GSIS case pronounced:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn simple paraphrase we say, regulation of the freedom of expression is not removal of constitutional right.4
Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right as any person in the land to voice out their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests. Civil Service does not deprive them of their freedom of expression. It would be unfair to hold that by joining the government service, the members thereof have renounced or waived this basic liberty. This freedom can be reasonably regulated only but can never be taken away.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SEC. 11. Prohibition Against Strikes in the Government.—The terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision ot instrumentality thereof, are governed by law and it is declared to be the policy of this Act that employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes or modification in their terms and conditions of employment, Such employees may belong to any-labor organization which does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided, however, That this section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental functions and not to those employed in proprietary functions of the Government including but not limited to governmental corporations.6 (Emphasis supplied)The last sentence differentiates between employees of government bodies that exercise governmental functions, and employees of those that exercise proprietary functions such as government corporations. The latter are not covered by the prohibition.
Article 276. Government employees. The terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. Their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new constitution. However, there shall be no reduction of existing wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment being enjoyed by them at the time of the adoption of this Code.9Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor10 ruled that petitioner government workers have the right to form associations, shared with all in public service, "[b]ut they may not join associations which impose the obligation to engage in concerted activities in order to get salaries, fringe benefits, and other emoluments higher than or different from that provided by law and regulation."11 Laws that allow employees of agencies discharging proprietary functions to engage in strikes or other concerted activities belong to the past.12chanrobleslaw
Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -(A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as.standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryPublic accountability and a commitment to giving priority to the public interest above private ones demand some level of limitation on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by government employees.
(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.
(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or'extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.
(d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference.
(e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.
(f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion.
(g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain the principle of public accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.
(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form
(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote (1) observance, of these standards including the dissemination of information programs and workshops authorizing merit increases beyond regular progression steps, to a limited number of employees recognized by their office colleagues to be outstanding in their observance of ethical standards; and (2) continuing research and experimentation on measures which provide positive motivation to public officials and employees in raising the general level of observance of these standards. (Emphasis supplied)
We, however, must not lose sight of the fact that the BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and distinct from the government. Section 3 of RepublicAct No. 7227 reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryGovernment-Owned and controlled corporations also exercising proprietary functions, not "mere agenc[ies] of the Government," should thus have a wider scope of freedom of expression compared to other, government agencies.Section 3. Creation of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. - There is hereby created a body corporate to be known as the Conversion Authority which shall have the attribute of perpetual succession and shall be vested with the powers of a corporation.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIt may not be amiss to state at this point that the functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. While public benefit and public welfare, particularly, the promotion of the economic and social development of Central Luzon, may be attributable to the operation of the BCDA, yet it is certain that the functions performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in nature. The promotion of economic and social development of Central Luzon, in particular, and the country's goal for enhancement, in general, do not make the BCDA equivalent to the Government. Other corporations have been created by government to act as its agents for the realization of its programs, the SSS, GSIS, NAWASA and the NIA, to count a few, and yet, the Court has ruled that these entities, although performing functions aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, are not government-function corporations invested with governmental attributes. It may thus be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions.22 (Emphasis supplied)
Specifically, the right of civil servants to organize themselves was positively recognized in Association of Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) vs. Ferrer-Caleja. But, a's in the exercise of the rights of free expression and of assembly, there are standards for allowable limitations such as the legitimacy of the purposes of the association, the overriding considerations of national security and the preservation of democratic institutions.Employees of government-owned and controlled corporation can freely exercise their right to freedom of expression, subject to law, including Civil Service Commission issuances that prohibit mass actions causing work stoppage. Government employees must uphold their commitment to public interest and act in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees. This level of limitation or regulation also applies to governmental financial institutions, often grouped with government-owned and controlled corporations.
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. Executive Order No: 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.31 (Citations and emphases omitted)
Endnotes:
1 Ponencia, p. 14.
2 640 Phil. 18 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
3 Ponencia, p. 14, citing 640 Phil. 18, 29 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
4 Ponencia, pp. 14-15, citations omitted.
5 Rep. Act No. 875 (1953), sec. 1 (a).
6 Rep. Act No. 875 (1953), sec. 11.
7Arizala v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-43633-34, September 14, 1990, 189 SCRA 584, 593 [Per J. Narvasa, First Division], citing Implementing Rules and Regulations, book V rule 11 sec. 1.
8 Id.
9 Pres. Decree No. 442 (1974), sec. 276.
10 209 Phil. 1 (1983) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
11 Id. at 21.
12 Id. at 16.
13Arizala v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-43633-34, September 14, 1990, 189 SCRA 584, 595 [Per J. Narvasa, First Division], citing LABOR CODE, art. 224; book V, rule 11, sec. 1, Implementing Rules and Regulations, as amended by sec. 3. Implementing Rules and Regulations, Exec. Order No. 111.
14 Exec. Order No. 180 (1987), sec. 1.
15 CONST., art. IX-B, sec. 2 (5).
16 CONST., art. XIII, sec. 3.
17 CONST., art. Ill, sec. 4.
18 CONST., art. XI, sec. 1.
19 This was approved on February 20, 1989.
20See Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor, 209 Phil. 1 (1983) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
21 404 Phil. 981 (2001) [Per J. Melo. Third Division].
22Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981,999 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
23 640 Phil. 18 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
24 Id. at 30.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 32.
27 539 Phil. 677 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, Second Division].
28 Id. at 684.
29 Id. at 694, citing CSC Resolution No. 021316, sec. 5.
30 346 Phil. 656 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
31 Id. at 669-670.
32 CONST., art. VI, sec. 11.
33 New Code of Judicial Conduct (2007), canon 1, sec. 3.
34 New Code of Judicial Conduct (2007), canon 4, sec. 6.
35 New Code of Judicial Conduct (2007).
36 New Code of Judicial Conduct (2007), canon 3, sec. 4.
37 530 Phil. 189 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
38 Id. at 202.
39 Id.
40See CONST., art. XI, sec. 1; Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 4.
JARDELEZA, J.:
On or about the same occasion, a NAMADACWAD official, respondent Gregorio S, Cagula, with the help of NAMADACWAD members attached some posters and/or similar materials bearing the inscription "CNA Incentives IHATAG NA! Director BRAGANZA PAHAWA NA!" to a post in the motorpool area; another poster of similar import was seen outside the guardhouse but inside the fence; both were situated within the premises of DCWD but outside the officially designated areas for posting. This act of respondent Gregorio S. Cagula appears to be an act of NAMADACWAD. As an organization, NAMADACWAD and its officials are responsible for an act of any of its officials or members committed in occasion and as a result of its duly approved concerted activity/mass action.From the beginning of the case, NAMADACWAD disputed the factual allegation that Cagula or any of its members or officers attached the union posters:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This is in violation of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 33, Series of 1994, regarding the Rules to Govern Posting and Hanging of Posters, Placards, Streamers and other Similar Materials. This Memorandum Circular is reiterated in Section 13 of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 021316.9 (Emphasis ours)
Atty. Tumanda: Okay we take note of that, thank you counsel. Anyway, I would like to make a recap on the factual issues. As I see it, it would seem that the only factual issue to be resolved is the posting of banners inside the DCWD compound. All others, are you admitting the facts?To support the charge against the union officers, DCWD presented photographs as physical evidence and the testimonies of two employees who took the photographs. The first set of photographs shows the posters already attached to the post in the motorpool area, with Cagula and other NAMADACWAD members standmg nearby. The second set of photographs shows the posters already attached to a post inside the premises of DCWD but outside the designated areas.11chanrobleslaw
Atty. Lopoz: Yes, your Honor only the posting of the banner is what we contest. All the facts in relation to the acts of the respondents here of wearing the union uniform as their understanding or interpretation of sports attire, we have no question on that matter your Honor. But on the fact of posting of banners, we are questioning and contesting on this your Honor.10
The Committee sees the pictures unfolding a sequence of events. As shown, there were three (3) persons standing close to one another facing the post, with arms extended and holding some sort of white bond paper, one of them, Board Director of NAMADACWAD. When they left the post, it was shown that a white bond paper with inscriptions "CNA Incentive ihatag na! Director Braganza pahawa na!" was already attached to the post. All these show that there is substantial evidence to conclude that respondent Gregorio S. Cagula was responsible to the posting of banner.12I disagree with this conclusion. Unfortunately, the photographs do not form part of the records for the Court to examine. However, based on DCWD's holding in relation to the first set of photographs, one photograph allegedly shows Cagula with two other persons near a post holding a white bond paper. Another photograph shows a union poster already attached to the post. These photographs do not prove that Cagula or any NAMADACWAD member attached the union poster outside designated areas. The two sets of photographs were taken by two employees who testified for DCWD. Neither testified that they saw Cagula in the act of attaching the posters.
Atty. Lopoz: Could you please read the wordings in the pictures you have taken? Particularly in Exhibit 34 "F-62".DCWD concluded that the photographs showed a "sequence of events" constituting "substantial evidence xxx that respondent Gregorio S. Cagula was responsible to the posting of banner."15 This finding is erroneous and contradicts the record. There is no showing what type of camera Dumalag used but she was on the scene. One photograph shows Cagula and two other persons "standing close to one another facing the post." Another photograph shows that "after they left the post," the poster was "already attached to the post." Assuming the photographs were indeed taken in sequence and for some reason Dumalag was unable to take photographs of the actual posting, she was on the scene and should have witnessed who actually attached the poster. However, her testimony is that she cannot "recall," as a result of which she merely presumed it was one of "those people," meaning the three, among them Cagula.
Ms. Dumalag: No to Privatization of Water District! Consumer Alert. CNA Incentive Ihatag Na! Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!
xxx
Atty. Lopoz: Okay, did you really see who posted these posters particularly in this Exhibit 34 "F-62".
Ms. Dumalag: I could not really recall who posted those but the picture would tell.
Atty. Lopoz: The picture would tell, but you did not see who really posted these posters?
Ms. Dumalag: To my recollection your Honor if I may review the picture, there could be but the way it was documented...
Atty. Lopoz: But the question is, did you see somebody who posted those posters?
Ms. Dumalag: Those were posted already.
Atty. Lopoz: Did vou see who posted these?
Ms. Dumalag: I cannot recall, but...
Atty. Lopoz: Okay, thank you. So you cannot recall and perhaps by your recollection as you have mentioned earlier that the pictures would tell. So you somehow presumed that somebody from those people you have taken pictures posted that posters?
Ms. Dumalag: I did.x x x14
(Emphasis ours)
Atty. Lopoz: Na na'ay nakapilit sa poste na coupon bond, ikaw ba ng nagpicture ani (That there was a coupon bond posted in the post)?The DCWD Administrative Committee itself found that no one saw who posted in this area.17 Like Dumalag, Leonida admitted that he only took the pictures when the posters were already attached. For that matter, considering that there is no testimonial or physical evidence shown that Cagula or any other NAMADACWAD member attached the union posters outside designated areas, there is no basis to hold them liable in violation of Memorandum Circular No. 33.
Mr. Leonida: Yes, Sir.
Atty. Lopoz: Sa atoa pa, nakita ka kung kinsa ang nagbutang ana (Or in other words, you saw who placed that)?
Mr. Leonida: Wala (No), Sir.
Atty. Lopoz: So imoha lang gyud gi-pikturan na nakapilit na siya (So you just purely took pictures when it was already posted)?
Mr. Leonida: Yes, Sir.
Atty. Lopoz: Pero wala gyud ka nakakita kung kinsa gyud nagbutang ana (But you actually did not see who placed that)?
Mr. Leonida: Yes, Sir.x x x16
(Underscoring in the original)
Art. 277. Prohibited activities.A strike or mass action which is legal does not become illegal merely because it is tainted by prohibited acts.21 Here, there was no prohibited mass action, and thus the union officers who wore shirts with the inscription were not held liable. Further, the alleged prohibited act of posting is not proven.
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. (Emphasis ours)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 223-226.
2Rules to Govern Posting and Hanging of Posters, Placards, Streamers and Other Similar Materials (1994).
3Rollo, p. 83.
4 (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents;
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(11) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
[Cirtek Employees Labor Union v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 190515, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 656, 660; Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 1, 10]
5Co v. Yeung, G.R. No. 212705, September 10, 2014.
6 Section 8. Questions that may be decided. — No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors. (7a)
7Martires v. Chua, G.R. No. 174240, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 38, 54.
8Rollo, p. 26.
9Rollo, pp. 224-225.
10Id. at 229; underscoring omitted.
11Rollo, p. 115, 127-128, 236, 250; CA rollo, pp. 12, 379.
12Rollo, p. 249.
13Id. at 233-234.
14Id. at 233.
15Id. at 249.
16Id. at 234.
17Id. at 250.
18Id. at 224-225.
19Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-28607, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 276; A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, et al., G.R. No. 166879, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 189.
20 Previously Art. 264 of the Labor Code.
21Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-28607, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 276
22Tobias v. Hon. Veloso, G.R. No. L-40224, September 23, 1990, 100 SCRA 177.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary