Page 1 of 6

G.R. No. 170132 December 6, 2006 implicitly endorsed an earlier CSC circular which
“enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all
government officers and employees from staging
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walkouts and
(GSIS) and WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as other forms of mass action which will result in
GSIS President & General Manager, petitioners, temporary stoppage or disruption of public service” by
vs. stating that the Civil Service law and rules governing
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA concerted activities and strikes in government service
GSIS, respondents. shall be observed.
FACTS: Forming a huge part of the October 4 to Public employees going on disruptive unauthorized
October 7, 2004 mass action participants were GSIS absences to join concerted mass actions may be held
personnel, among them members of the herein liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa GSIS the service.
(“KMG” or the “Union”), a public sector union of GSIS With the view we take of the events that transpired on
rank-and-file employees. October 4-7, 2004, what respondent’s members
On or about October 10, 2004, the manager of the launched or participated in during that time partook
GSIS Investigating Unit issued a memorandum of a strike or, what contextually amounts to the same
directing 131 union and non-union members to show thing, a prohibited concerted activity. The phrase
cause why they should not be charged “prohibited concerted activity” refers to any collective
administratively for their participation in said rally. In activity undertaken by government employees, by
reaction, KMG’s counsel, Atty. Manuel Molina, sought themselves or through their employees’ organization,
reconsideration of said directive on the ground, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service
among others, that the subject employees resumed disruption in order to realize their demands or force
work on October 8, 2004 in obedience to the return- concessions, economic or otherwise; it includes mass
to-work order thus issued. The plea for leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar
reconsideration was, however, effectively denied by nature. Indeed, for four straight days, participating
the filing, on October 25, 2004, of administrative KMG members and other GSIS employees staged a
charges against some 110 KMG members for grave walk out and waged or participated in a mass protest
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best or demonstration right at the very doorstep of the
interest of the service. GSIS main office building. The record of
KMG filed a petition for prohibition with the CA attendance for the period material shows that, on the
against these charges. The CA granted the petition first day of the protest, 851 employees, or forty eight
and enjoined the GSIS from implementing the issued per cent (48%) of the total number of employees in the
formal charges and from issuing other formal charges main office (1,756) took to the streets during office
arising from the same facts and events. hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,leaving the other
CA equated the right to form associations with the employees to fend for themselves in an office where a
right to engage in strike and similar activities host of transactions take place every business day.
available to workers in the private sector. In the On the second day, 707 employees left their
concrete, the appellate court concluded that respective work stations, while 538 participated in
inasmuch as GSIS employees are not barred from the mass action on the third day. A smaller number,
forming, joining or assisting employees’ organization, i.e., 306 employees, but by no means an insignificant
petitioner Garcia could not validly initiate charges few, joined the fourth day activity.
against GSIS employees waging or joining rallies and In whatever name respondent desires to call the four-
demonstrations notwithstanding the service- day mass action in October 2004, the stubborn fact
disruptive effect of such mass action. remains that the erring employees, instead of
ISSUE: WON the strike conducted by the GSIS exploring non-crippling activities during their free
employees were valid time, had taken a disruptive approach to attain
HELD: NO whatever it was they were specifically after. As events
The 1987 Constitution expressly guaranteeing, for the evolved, they assembled in front of the GSIS main
first time, the right of government personnel to self- office building during office hours and staged rallies
organization to complement the provision according and protests, and even tried to convince others to join
workers the right to engage in “peaceful concerted their cause, thus provoking work stoppage and
activities, including the right to strike in accordance service-delivery disruption, the very evil sought to be
with law.”. It was against the backdrop of the forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by
aforesaid provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the government personnel.
Court resolved Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals. In it, To petitioner Garcia, as President and General
we held, citing MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr., that employees Manager of GSIS, rests the authority and
in the public service may not engage in strikes or in responsibility, under Section 45 of Republic Act No.
concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work; that 8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove, suspend or
the right of government employees to organize is otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause. At
limited to the formation of unions or associations, bottom then, petitioner Garcia, by filing or causing
without including the right to strike. the filing of administrative charges against the
Specifically, the right of civil servants to organize absenting participants of the October 4-7, 2004 mass
themselves was positively recognized in Association of action, merely performed a duty expected of him and
Court of Appeals Employees vs. Ferrer-Caleja. But, as enjoined by law. Regardless of the mood petitioner
in the exercise of the rights of free expression and of Garcia was in when he signed the charge sheet, his
assembly, there are standards for allowable act can easily be sustained as legally correct and
limitations such as the legitimacy of the purpose of doubtless within his jurisdiction.
the association, [and] the overriding considerations of
national security. G.R. No. 170132 December 6, 2006
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 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
may, by law, regulate the use of this right, or even (GSIS) and WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as
deny certain sectors such right. Executive Order 180 GSIS President & General Manager, petitioners,
which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right vs.
of government workers to organize, for instance, KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
GSIS, respondents.
 Page 2 of 6

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
DECISION rules." Two supplements to the foregoing
petition were eventually filed by KMG. The
first, … apprised [the CA] of the supposed
fact that its Speaker, Atty. Molina, had been
placed under preventive suspension for 90
days and that the formal charges thus filed
GARCIA, J.:
will not only deprive its members of the
privileges and benefits due them but will also
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 disqualify them from promotion, step
of the Rules of Court, the Government Service increment adjustments and receipt of
Insurance System (GSIS) and its President and monetary benefits, including their 13th
General Manager Winston F. Garcia (Garcia, for month pay and Christmas bonuses. The
short) assail and seek to nullify the Decision1 dated second, xxx manifested that, on December
June 16, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. 17, 2004, respondent [Garcia] served a spate
SP No. 87220, as reiterated in its Resolution2 of of additional formal charges against 230 of
October 18, 2005 denying Garcia's motion for KMG's members for their participation in the
reconsideration. aforesaid grievance demonstrations.

The recourse is cast against the following setting: In his December 14, 2004 comment to the
foregoing petition, respondent [Garcia]
A four-day October 2004 concerted demonstration, averred that the case at bench was filed by an
rallies and en masse walkout waged/held in front of unauthorized representative in view of the
the GSIS main office in Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, fact that Albert Velasco had already been
started it all. Forming a huge part of the October 4 to dropped from the GSIS rolls and, by said
October 7, 2004 mass action participants were GSIS token, had ceased to be a member – much
personnel, among them members of the herein less the President – of KMG. Invoking the rule
respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa GSIS against forum shopping, respondent [Garcia]
("KMG" or the "Union"), a public sector union of GSIS called [the CA's] attention to the supposed
rank-and-file employees. Contingents from other fact that the allegations in the subject
government agencies joined causes with the GSIS petition merely duplicated those already set
group. The mass action's target appeared to have forth in two petitions for certiorari and
been herein petitioner Garcia and his management prohibition earlier filed by Albert Velasco ….
style. While the Mayor of Pasay City allegedly issued a Because said petitions are, in point of fact,
rally permit, the absence of the participating GSIS pending before this court as CA-G.R. SP Nos.
employees was not covered by a prior approved 86130 and 86365, respondent [Garcia]
leave.3 prayed for the dismissal of the petition at
bench ….5 (Words in bracket added.)
On or about October 10, 2004, the manager of the
GSIS Investigating Unit issued a memorandum It appears that pending resolution by the CA of the
directing 131 union and non-union members to show KMG petition for prohibition in this case, the GSIS
cause why they should not be charged management proceeded with the investigation of the
administratively for their participation in said rally. In administrative cases filed. As represented in a
reaction, KMG's counsel, Atty. Manuel Molina, sought pleading before the CA, as of May 18, 2005, two
reconsideration of said directive on the ground, hundred seven (207) out of the two hundred seventy
among others, that the subject employees resumed eight (278) cases filed had been resolved, resulting in
work on October 8, 2004 in obedience to the return- the exoneration of twenty (20) respondent-employees,
to-work order thus issued. The plea for the reprimand of one hundred eighty two (182) and
reconsideration was, however, effectively denied by the suspension for one month of five (5).6
the filing, on October 25, 2004, of administrative
charges against some 110 KMG members for grave On June 16, 2005, the CA rendered the herein
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best assailed decision7 holding that Garcia's "filing of
interest of the service.4 administrative charges against 361 of [KMG's]
members is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion
What happened next is summarized by the CA in its which may be the proper subject of the writ of
challenged decision of June 16, 2005, albeit the prohibition." Dispositively, the decision reads:
herein petitioners would except from some of the
details of the appellate court's narration: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition [of KMG] is GRANTED and
Ignoring said formal charges, KMG, thru its respondent [Winston F. Garcia] is
President, Albert Velasco, commenced the hereby PERPETUALLY ENJOINED from
instant suit on November 2, 2004, with the implementing the issued formal charges and
filing of the Petition for Prohibition at bench. from issuing other formal charges arising
On the ground that its members should not from the same facts and events.
be made to explain why they supported their
union's cause, petitioner [KMG] faulted SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)
respondent [Garcia] with blatant disregard of
Civil Service Resolution No. 021316, Unable to accept the above ruling and the purported
otherwise known as the Guidelines for speculative factual and erroneous legal premises
Prohibited Mass Action, Section 10 of which holding it together, petitioner Garcia sought
exhorts government agencies to "harness all reconsideration. In its equally assailed Resolution8 of
means within their capacity to accord due October 18, 2005, however, the appellate court
regard and attention to employees' grievances denied reconsideration of its decision.
 Page 3 of 6

Hence, this recourse by the petitioners ascribing mass demonstrations were directed against
serious errors on the appellate court in granting the [Garcia's] supposed mismanagement of the
petition for prohibition absent an instance of grave financial resources of the GSIS, by and of
abuse of authority on their part. itself, renders the filing of administrative
charges against [KMG's] member suspect.
We resolve to GRANT the petition. More significantly, we find the gravity of the
offenses and the sheer number of persons …
charged administratively to be, at the very
It should be stressed right off that the civil service least, antithetical to the best interest of the
encompasses all branches and agencies of the service….
Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations (GOCCs) with original
charters, like the GSIS,9 or those created by special It matters little that, instead of the 361
law.10 As such, employees of covered GOCCs are part alleged by petitioner, only 278 charges were
of the civil service system and are subject to actually filed [and] in the meantime, disposed
circulars, rules and regulations issued by the Civil of and of the said number, 20 resulted to
Service Commission (CSC) on discipline, attendance exoneration, 182 to reprimand and 5 to the
and general terms/conditions of employment, imposition of a penalty of one month
inclusive of matters involving self-organization, suspension. Irrespective of their outcome, the
strikes, demonstrations and like concerted actions. In severe penalties prescribed for the offense
fact, policies established on public sector unionism with which petitioner's members were
and rules issued on mass action have been noted and charged, to our mind, bespeak of bellicose
cited by the Court in at least a case.11 Among these and castigatory reaction …. The fact that
issuances is Executive Order (EO) No. 180, series of most of the employees [Garcia]
1987, providing guidelines for the exercise of the right administratively charged were eventually
to organize of government employees. Relevant also is meted with what appears to be a virtual slap
CSC Resolution No. 021316 which provides rules on on the wrist even makes us wonder why
prohibited concerted mass actions in the public respondent even bothered to file said charges
sector. at all. xxx.

There is hardly any dispute about the formal charges Alongside the consequences of the right of
against the 278 affected GSIS employees – a mix of government employees to form, join or assist
KMG union and non-union members - having arose employees organization, we have already
from their having gone on unauthorized leave of mentioned how the broader rights of free
absence (AWOL) for at least a day or two in the expression cast its long shadow over the case.
October 4 to 7, 2004 stretch to join the ranks of the xxx we find [petitioner Garcia's] assailed acts,
demonstrators /rallyists at that time. As stated in on the whole, anathema to said right which
each of the formal charges, the employee's act of has been aptly characterized as preferred,
attending, joining, participating and taking part in one which stands on a higher level than
the strike/rally is a transgression of the rules on substantive economic and other liberties, the
strike in the public sector. The question that matrix of other important rights of our
immediately comes to the fore, therefore, is whether people. xxx.14 (Underscoring and words in
or not the mass action staged by or participated in by bracket added; citations omitted.)
said GSIS employees partook of a strike or prohibited
concerted mass action. If in the affirmative, then the While its decision and resolution do not explicitly say
denounced filing of the administrative charges would so, the CA equated the right to form associations with
be prima facie tenable, inasmuch as engaging in mass the right to engage in strike and similar activities
actions resulting in work stoppage or service available to workers in the private sector. In the
disruption constitutes, in the minimum, the concrete, the appellate court concluded that
punishable offense of acting prejudicial to the best inasmuch as GSIS employees are not barred from
interest of the service.12 If in the negative, then such forming, joining or assisting employees' organization,
filing would indeed smack of arbitrariness and justify petitioner Garcia could not validly initiate charges
the issuance of a corrective or preventive writ. against GSIS employees waging or joining rallies and
demonstrations notwithstanding the service-
Petitioners assert that the filing of the formal charges disruptive effect of such mass action. Citing what
are but a natural consequence of the service- Justice Isagani Cruz said in Manila Public School
disrupting rallies and demonstrations staged during Teachers Association [MPSTA] v. Laguio, Jr.,15 the
office hours by the absenting GSIS employees, there appellate court declared:
being appropriate issuances outlawing such kinds of
mass action. On the other hand, the CA, agreeing It is already evident from the aforesaid
with the respondent's argument, assumed the view provisions of Resolution No. 021316 that
and held that the organized demonstrating employees employees of the GSIS are not among those
did nothing more than air their grievances in the specifically barred from forming, joining or
exercise of their "broader rights of free assisting employees organization such as
expression"13 and are, therefore, not amenable to [KMG]. If only for this ineluctable fact, the
administrative sanctions. For perspective, following is merit of the petition at bench is readily
what the CA said: discernible.16

Although the filing of administrative charges We are unable to lend concurrence to the above CA
against [respondent KMG's] members is well posture. For, let alone the fact that it ignores what
within [petitioner Garcia's] official the Court has uniformly held all along, the appellate
[disciplinary] prerogatives, [his] exercise of court's position is contrary to what Section 4 in
the power vested under Section 45 of relation to Section 5 of CSC Resolution No.
Republic Act No. 8291 was tainted with 02131617 provides. Besides, the appellate court's
arbitrariness and vindictiveness against invocation of Justice Cruz's opinion in MPSTA is
which prohibition was sought by clearly off-tangent, the good Justice's opinion thereat
[respondent]. xxx the fact that the subject being a dissent. It may be, as the appellate court
 Page 4 of 6

urged¸ that the freedom of expression and assembly other forms of mass action that will lead in
and the right to petition the government for a redress the temporary stoppage or disruption of
of grievances stand on a level higher than economic public service. The right of government
and other liberties. Any suggestion, however, about employees to organize is limited to the
these rights as including the right on the part of formation of unions or associations only,
government personnel to strike ought to be, as it has without including the right to strike,
been, trashed. We have made this abundantly clear in
our past determinations. For instance, in Alliance of adding that public employees going on disruptive
Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and unauthorized absences to join concerted mass
Employment,18 a case decided under the aegis of the actions may be held liable for conduct prejudicial to
1973 Constitution, an en banc Court declared that it the best interest of the service.
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 Significantly, 1986 Constitutional Commission
Government. Then came the 1987 Constitution member Eulogio Lerum, answering in the negative the
expressly guaranteeing, for the first time, the right of poser of whether or not the right of government
government personnel to self-organization19 to employees to self-organization also includes the right
complement the provision according workers the right to strike, stated:
to engage in "peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law."20 When we proposed this amendment providing
for self organization of government
It was against the backdrop of the aforesaid employees, it does not mean that because
provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the Court they have the right to organize, they have also
resolved Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals.21 In it, we the right to strike. That is a different matter.
held, citing MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr.,22 that employees in xxx25
the public service may not engage in strikes or in
concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work; that With the view we take of the events that transpired on
the right of government employees to organize is October 4-7, 2004, what respondent's members
limited to the formation of unions or associations, launched or participated in during that time partook
without including the right to strike. of a strike or, what contextually amounts to the same
thing, a prohibited concerted activity. The phrase
Jacinto v. Court of Appeals23 came next and there we "prohibited concerted activity" refers to any collective
explained: activity undertaken by government employees, by
themselves or through their employees' organization,
with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service
Specifically, the right of civil servants to disruption in order to realize their demands or force
organize themselves was positively recognized concessions, economic or otherwise; it includes mass
in Association of Court of Appeals Employees leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar
vs. Ferrer-Caleja. But, as in the exercise of nature.26 Indeed, for four straight days, participating
the rights of free expression and of KMG members and other GSIS employees staged a
assembly, there are standards for allowable walk out and waged or participated in a mass protest
limitations such as the legitimacy of the or demonstration right at the very doorstep of the
purpose of the association, [and] the GSIS main office building. The record of
overriding considerations of national security 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
As regards the right to strike, the employees in the main office (1,756) took to the
Constitution itself qualifies its exercise with streets during office hours, from 6 a.m. to 2
the provision "in accordance with law." This p.m.,28leaving the other employees to fend for
is a clear manifestation that the state may, by themselves in an office where a host of transactions
law, regulate the use of this right, or even take place every business day. On the second day,
deny certain sectors such right. Executive 707 employees left their respective work stations,
Order 180 which provides guidelines for the while 538 participated in the mass action on the third
exercise of the right of government workers to day. A smaller number, i.e., 306 employees, but by no
organize, for instance, implicitly endorsed an means an insignificant few, joined the fourth day
earlier CSC circular which "enjoins under activity.
pain of administrative sanctions, all
government officers and employees from To say that there was no work disruption or that the
staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, delivery of services remained at the usual level of
walkouts and other forms of mass action efficiency at the GSIS main office during those four (4)
which will result in temporary stoppage or days of massive walkouts and wholesale absences
disruption of public service" by stating that would be to understate things. And to place the erring
the Civil Service law and rules governing employees beyond the reach of administrative
concerted activities and strikes in accountability would be to trivialize the civil service
government service shall be observed. rules, not to mention the compelling spirit of
(Emphasis and words in bracket added; professionalism exacted of civil servants by the Code
citations omitted) of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees. 29
And in the fairly recent case of Gesite v. Court of
Appeals,24 the Court defined the limits of the right of The appellate court made specific reference to the
government employees to organize in the following "parliament of the streets," obviously to lend
wise: concurrence to respondent's pretension that the
gathering of GSIS employees on October 4-7, 2004
It is relevant to state at this point that the was an "assembly of citizens" out only to air
settled rule in this jurisdiction is that grievances, not a striking crowd. According to the
employees in the public service may not respondent, a strike presupposes a mass action
engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and
 Page 5 of 6

undertaken to press for some economic demands or guilt of an administrative offense from the
secure additional material employment benefits. complainant.

We are not convinced. Moreover, the Court invites attention to its holding
in MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr., a case involving over 800
In whatever name respondent desires to call the four- public school teachers who took part in mass actions
day mass action in October 2004, the stubborn fact for which the then Secretary of Education filed
remains that the erring employees, instead of administrative complaints on assorted charges, such
exploring non-crippling activities during their free as gross misconduct. Of those charged, 650 were
time, had taken a disruptive approach to attain dismissed and 195 suspended for at least six (6)
whatever it was they were specifically after. As events months The Court, however, did not consider the
evolved, they assembled in front of the GSIS main element of number of respondents thereat and/or the
office building during office hours and staged rallies dire consequences of the charge/s as fatally vitiating
and protests, and even tried to convince others to join or beclouding the bona fides of the Secretary of
their cause, thus provoking work stoppage and Education's challenged action. Then as now, the
service-delivery disruption, the very evil sought to be Court finds the filing of charges against a large
forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by number of persons and/or the likelihood that they
government personnel.30 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
The Court can concede hypothetically that the protest issuance of a writ of prohibition.
rally and gathering in question did not involve some
specific material demand. But then the absence of
such economic-related demand, even if true, did not, The appellate court faulted petitioner Garcia for not
under the premises, make such mass action less of a first taping existing grievance machinery and other
prohibited concerted activity. For, as articulated modes of settlement agreed upon in the GSIS-KMG
earlier, any collective activity undertaken by Collective Negotiations Agreement (CAN) before going
government employees with the intent of effecting full steam ahead with his formal charges.34
work stoppage or service disruption in order to realize
their demands or force concessions, economic or The Court can plausibly accord cogency to the CA's
otherwise, is a prohibited concerted mass angle on grievance procedure but for the fact that it
action31 and doubtless actionable conveniently disregarded what appears to be the more
administratively. Bangalisan even went further to say relevant provision of the CNA. We refer to Article VI
the following: "[i]n the absence of statute, public which reads:
employees do not have the right to engage in concerted
work stoppages for any purpose." The GSIS Management and the KMG have
mutually agreed to promote the principle of
To petitioner Garcia, as President and General shared responsibility … on all matters and
Manager of GSIS, rests the authority and decisions affecting the rights, benefits and
responsibility, under Section 45 of Republic Act No. interests of all GSIS employees ….
8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove, suspend or Accordingly, … the parties also mutually
otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause.32 At agree that the KMG shall not declare a strike
bottom then, petitioner Garcia, by filing or causing nor stage any concerted action which will
the filing of administrative charges against the disrupt public service and the GSIS
absenting participants of the October 4-7, 2004 mass management shall not lockout employees
action, merely performed a duty expected of him and who are members of the KMG during the
enjoined by law. Regardless of the mood petitioner term of this agreement. GSIS Management
Garcia was in when he signed the charge sheet, his shall also respect the rights of the employees
act can easily be sustained as legally correct and to air their sentiments through peaceful
doubtless within his jurisdiction. concerted activities during allowable hours,
subject to reasonable office rules
It bears to reiterate at this point that the GSIS ....35 (Underscoring added)
employees concerned were proceeded against - and
eventually either exonerated, reprimanded or meted a If the finger of blame, therefore, is to be pointed at
one-month suspension, as the case may be - not for someone for non-exhaustion of less confrontational
the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and remedies, it should be at the respondent union for
to petition for redress of grievance, but for engaging spearheading a concerted mass action without
in what appeared to be a prohibited concerted resorting to available settlement mechanism. As it
activity. Respondent no less admitted that its were, it was KMG, under Atty. Alberto Velasco, which
members and other GSIS employees might have opened fire first. That none of the parties bothered to
disrupted public service.33 avail of the grievance procedures under the GSIS-
KMG CNA should not be taken against the GSIS. At
To be sure, arbitrariness and whimsical exercise of best, both GSIS management and the Union should
power or, in fine, grave abuse of discretion on the be considered as in pari delicto.
part of petitioner Garcia cannot be simplistically
inferred from the sheer number of those charged as With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds it
well as the gravity or the dire consequences of the unnecessary to discuss at length the legal standing of
charge of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial Alberto Velasco to represent the herein respondent
to the best interest of the service, as the appellate union and to initiate the underlying petition for
court made it to appear. The principle of prohibition. Suffice it to state that Velasco, per Joint
accountability demands that every erring government Resolution No. 04-10-01 approved on October 5,
employee be made answerable for any malfeasance or 2004 by the KMG Joint Executive-Legislative
misfeasance committed. And lest it be overlooked, the Assembly, had ceased to be member, let alone
mere filing of formal administrative case, regardless of president, of the KMG, having previously been
the gravity of the offense charged, does not overcome dropped from the rolls of GSIS employees.36 While the
the presumptive innocence of the persons complained dropping from the rolls is alleged to have been the
of nor does it shift the burden of evidence to prove subject of a CA-issued temporary restraining order
 Page 6 of 6

(TRO), the injunction came after Atty. Velasco had in

fact been separated from the service and it appears
that the TRO had already expired.

As a final consideration, the Court notes or reiterates

the following relevant incidents surrounding the
disposition of the case below:

1. The CA had invoked as part of its ratio

decidendi a dissenting opinion in MPSTA,
even going to the extent of describing as
"instructive and timely" a portion, when the
majority opinion thereat, which the appellate
court ignored, is the controlling
jurisprudence.

2. The CA gave prominence to dispositions

and rattled off holdings37 of the Court, which
appropriately apply only to strikes in the
private industry labor sector, and utilized the
same as springboard to justify an inference of
grave abuse of discretion. On the other hand,
it only gave perfunctory treatment if not
totally ignored jurisprudence that squarely
dealt with strikes in the public sector, as if
the right to strike given to unions in private
corporations/entities is necessarily applicable
to civil service employees.

3. As couched, the assailed CA decision

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

The absurdities and ironies easily deducible from the

foregoing situations are not lost on the Court.

We close with the observation that the assailed

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

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution

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

No Cost.