GSIS v.
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS KMG filed a petition for prohibition, arguing that the charges were
G.R. No. 170132
December 6, 2006
SUMMARY
A dispute aroused between the GSIS, its President and the
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS union for the alleged
mass action held by GSIS employees. Supreme Court ruled that
the filing of administrative charges against the GSIS employees
was justified as the mass action constituted a strike or prohibited
concerted activity.
FACTS
In October 2004, a four-day mass action was held in front of the
GSIS main office in Pasay City, where GSIS employees, including
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS (KMG) union members (a
public sector union of GSIS rank-and-file employees), participated
in rallies against GSIS President Winston Garcia and his
management style.
On or about October 10, 2004, the manager of the GSIS
Investigating Unit issued a memorandum directing 131 union and
non-union members to show cause why they should not be charged
administratively for their participation in said rally. In reaction,
KMG’s counsel, Atty. Manuel Molina, sought reconsideration of
said directive but was, however, denied by the filing of
administrative charges against some 110 KMG members for grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
unjustified and violated Civil Service Resolution No. 021316, which
encourages the use of grievance machinery to resolve employee
grievances. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in favor of KMG,
permanently enjoining Garcia from implementing the charges and
issuing further charges arising from the same events. On the other
hand, the CA, agreeing with the respondent's argument, assumed
the view and held that the organized demonstrating employees
did nothing more than air their grievances in the exercise of
their "broader rights of free expression" and are, therefore, not
amenable to administrative sanctions.
The GSIS and Garcia appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the mass action staged by or participated in by said
GSIS employees partook of a strike or prohibited concerted mass
action.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CA, holding that the
mass action staged by the GSIS employees constituted a strike or
prohibited concerted mass action and emphasized that government
employees do not have the right to strike and engage in mass actions
that disrupt public service. According to SC, CA equated the right to
form associations with the right to engage in strike and similar
activities available to workers in the private sector. The appellate
court concluded that inasmuch as GSIS employees are not barred
from forming, joining or assisting employees’ organization,
petitioner Garcia could not validly initiate charges against GSIS
employees waging or joining rallies and demonstrations such as the$egitimac/ of the purpose of the association,
notwithstanding the service-disruptive effect of such mass action. @and the overriding considerations of
nationa$securit/.As regards the right to stri-e, the Constitution
IGLESIAS, KRISTEL JOY M. itse$f 6ua$ifies its e>ercise !ith the provision )inaccordance !ith
$a!.* This is a c$ear manifestation that the state ma/, b/ $a!,
The 0=7 Constitution e>press$/ guaranteeing, for the first time, regu$ate the use ofthis right, or even den/ certain sectors such
the right of government personne$ to se$f organiation to right. 8>ecutive Order 0 !hich providesguide$ines for the
comp$ement the provision according !or-ers the right toengage e>ercise of the right of government !or-ers to organie, for
in ) instance,imp$icit$/ endorsed an ear$ier CSC circu$ar !
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in hich )en3oins under pain of administrativesanctions, a$$
accordance with law government officers and emp$o/ees from staging stri-es,
.*. #t!as against the bac-drop of the aforesaid provisions of the demonstrations, mass
0=7 Constitution that the Courtreso$ved
Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals
. #n it, !e he$d, citing
MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr.
,
*'!*em) o+ee &" *'e ) b &c  er&ce m!+ "o*
e"/!/e &" *r&5e or &" co"cer*e# !"# "!
*'or&e#*o))!/e o or58 *'!* *'e
r&/'* o /oer"me"* em)o+ee *o
or/!"&e & &m&*e# *o *'eorm!*&o"
o "&o" or !oc&!*&o",
&*'o* &"c#&"/ *'e r&/'* *o *r&5e
.Specifica$$/, the right of civi$ servants to organie themse$ves !
as positive$/ recognied inAssociation of Court of Appea$s
8mp$o/ees vs. Ferrer Ca$e3a. ?ut, as in the e>ercise of the
rightsof free e>pression and of assemb$/,
*'ere !re *!"#!r# or !o!be &m&*!*&o"