DCWD Vs Namadacwad
DCWD Vs Namadacwad
DCWD Vs Namadacwad
$->upreme <!ourt
;JManila
EN BANC
~
SOCRATES V. CORCUERA,
ALEJANDRO C. PICHON,
GRACIANO A. MONCADA,
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 194192
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 0.
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. Promulgated:
GUNTING,
Respondents. June 16, 2015
o/11~~-~-
)( - ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- ~ - ~·~ J ----- --- - x.
RESOLUTION
PEREZ,J.:
MIN dated 7 October 2010, affirming the 14 January 2009 Resolution No.
09-0047 rendered by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The Facts
The records show that as early as 16 May 2007, the members and
officers of NAMADACWAD have been staging pickets in front of the
DCWD Office during their lunch breaks to air their grievances about the
non-payment of their Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives
and their opposition to DCWD’s privatization and proposed One Hundred
Million Peso Loan.
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.
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.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 194192
to dismissal from service with all accessory penalties under the CSC Law
and Rules.16
CSC Resolution
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.
21
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.
22
CA rollo, pp. 363-394.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 194192
23
Id. at 464-482.
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 194192
The appellate court disagreed with the contention of DCWD that there
was a violation of any provision of Resolution No. 021316 in this wise:
xxxx
24
Id. at 481-482.
25
WHEREFORE, 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.
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 194192
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.
The DCWD is now before us still with its basic arguments, though
rephrased:
I.
The court a quo failed to rule on the issue whether or not the respondents’
Consolidated Appeal filed before the CSC was sufficient in form and
substance.
II.
The court a quo erred in ruling that the concerted mass action on November
9, 2007 was not prohibited under Resolution No. 021316.
III.
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 Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases.
IV.
The court a quo erred in ruling that respondents’ act of posting white bond
papers with union-related inscriptions on their t-shirts while inside the office
premises does not constitute serious violation of Civil Service Rules but
only a violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, despite the fact
that the said Memorandum Circular No. 33 is a CSC-issued Memorandum
and not DCWD-issued Rules.
V.
26
Id. at 785-786.
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 194192
The court a quo erred in ruling that MC No. 33 was not violated by
respondent Gregorio S. Cagula and the rest of the officials of
NAMADACWAD who were charged in DCWD Administrative case No.
34-2007.
VI.
The court a quo erred in not taking into consideration that respondents
Aranjuez, Cagula and Bondoc were second-time offenders who were
previously charged and penalized for violation of MC No. 33, thereby
justifying their dismissal from the service.
VII.
The court a quo erred when it failed to rule on the issue of whether the
decisions of a government agency, acting as Disciplining Authority, in
disciplinary cases are immediately executory upon receipt thereof.
27
Section 46. Perfection of an Appeal. — To perfect an appeal, the appellant shall within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the decision submit the following:
a. Notice of appeal which shall specifically state the date of the decision appealed from
and the date of receipt thereof;
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 194192
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.
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.
28
Adalim 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.
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 194192
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.
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.
DCWD primarily contends that CSC and the Court of Appeals erred
in ruling that the concerted mass action on 9 November 2007 is not
prohibited under Resolution No. 021316. We disagree.
DCWD 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.
It is clear that the collective activity of joining the fun run in t-shirts
with inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to effect work stoppage or
disrupt the service. As pointed out by the 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 were
allowed, nay required, to wear. Else, government employees would be
deprived of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.40 This, then,
being the fact, we have to rule against the findings of both the CSC and
Court of Appeals that the wearing of t-shirts with grievance inscriptions
constitutes as a violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.
First off and as correctly pointed out by the charged officials and
members in their 19 November 2007 Reply Letter to DCWD, they did not
violate the 31 October 2007 Office Memorandum issued by GM Gamboa
relating to the proper attire to be worn during the fun run. The Office
Memorandum was clear in its order that the participants are free to wear any
sports attire during the event. To reiterate, the t-shirts they wore fall within
39
Id.
40
Supra note 29.
Resolution 15 G.R. No. 194192
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.
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.
46
Borough 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).
Resolution 17 G.R. No. 194192
47
GSIS v. Villaviza, supra note 41, at 30.
48
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
49
In RE: Failure of Various Employees to Register their Time of Arrival and/or Departure From
Office in the Chronolog Machine, 646 Phil. 18 (2010).
Resolution 18 G.R. No. 194192
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.
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.
Resolution 19 G.R. No. 194192
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.54
54
Nippon 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).
Resolution 20 G.R. No. 194192
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, .JR.
Associate Justice Ass6ciate Justice
~
~~h~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ARTtlitPn~
Associate Justice
I
( On Official Leave)
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Resolution 21 G.R. No. 194192
.. 4~·--·
~ i?
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
JOSECA~ENDOZA
~
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
As~~~J~:tice /
Associate Justice
IA~. flt/
ESTELA M. j>ERLAS-BERNAB
Associate Justice Associate Justice
( On Official Leave )
~tt"1~
~
J.L-,, ~
,- ~rt>'- ,...J2.
FRANCS LEZA~ ~l
Associate Justice I/~
~
CERTIFICATION