USA College of Law
GPSA 2022
Case Name
Topic
Case No. | Date
Ponente
Doctrine
47. GSIS & Winston Garcia vs. Dinnah Villaviza et. al., July 27, 2010
Freedom of Expression
G.R. No. 180291
Mendoza, J.
Not all collective activity or mass undertaking in government
employees is prohibited or else they will be deprived of the
constitutional right of freedom of expression. This freedom can be
regulated but not taken away.
RELEVANT FACTS
-
-
-
May 27, 2005 – 20 employees wearing red shirts, marched and protested outside
the Office of the Investigation Unit in support for Messrs. Mario Molina and Albert
Velasco, where the latter surreptitiously entered the GSIS premises. Some of the
employees badmouthed the security guards of GSIS and clenched fists.
Respondents utter contempt in CSC Resolution No. 021316 which prohibits mass
actions in the public sector. Respondents denied mass action and explained is was
for the support of their former union president being there.
Filed case to respondents for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial but
there was no answer from them. CSC found respondents guilty of a lesser offense of
Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. Petitioner was not satisfied
with the CSC’s ruling and raised a petition to the CA.
CA deemed that CSC is correct. Saying that Petitioner failed to prove that
respondents caused work stoppage and caused prejudice to public service. Also,
respondents were there in support of Atty. Molina and Albert Velasco, including
their union officers.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue
1. Whether or not the employees were
liable for conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service pursuant
to CSC Resolution No. 021316.
2. Whether or not the support of the
employees to their leader as
counsel, for more than an hour,
inside the office falls under
Freedom of Expression and Peaceful
Assembly.
Held
1. No. Sec. 5 in Omnibus Rules in
“prohibited concerted activity or
mass action” refers to any collective
activities of government employees
through their employer
organizations, “with intent of
effecting work stoppage or service
disruption in order to realize their
demands of force concession,
economic, or otherwise”. CSC found
that acts of respondents witnessing
the public hearing do not amount to
concerted activity or mass action
and can be deemed as their
constitutional right to freedom of
expression. Wearing similar color
shirts, clenching their fists, having
recording gadgets, badmouthing
guards and Garcia are not acts
constituting of (i) intent to effect
work stoppage of service
disruptions and (ii) for the purpose
of realizing their demands of force
concession.
2. Yes. Not all collective activity or
mass undertaking in government
employees is prohibited or else they
will be deprived of the
‘
constitutional right of freedom of
expression. This freedom can be
regulated but not taken away.
RULING
Wherefore, the decision of the CA is affirmed.
EXPLANATION/NOTES (if necessary)
‘