G.R. No. 189529; AUGUST 10, 2012
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as President and General Manager of the GSIS, Petitioner, vs. MARICAR B. BUENVIAJE-CARREON, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Maricar B. Buenviaje-Carreon, a Social Insurance Specialist at the GSIS, was administratively charged with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The charges stemmed from her alleged participation in a mass action on May 27, 2005, where she and other employees wore red shirts, gathered outside the GSIS Investigation Unit office to show support for union leaders during a hearing, and temporarily left their work posts. The GSIS Investigation Unit issued a memorandum requiring her to explain. Subsequently, GSIS President Winston F. Garcia issued a Formal Charge, placing her under preventive suspension. Respondent did not file an answer to this Formal Charge but had previously responded to the initial memorandum, admitting her presence to show support.
The GSIS rendered a Decision finding her guilty and imposing a one-year suspension, noting her failure to file an answer to the Formal Charge. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified the ruling, finding her guilty only of the lesser offense of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and imposing a penalty of reprimand. The CSC held that her actions did not constitute a prohibited concerted activity as defined under its rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision, applying the principle of stare decisis by adopting its earlier ruling in a substantially similar case, GSIS v. Villaviza.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s ruling that downgraded the charges against the respondent from Grave Misconduct/Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service to mere Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court upheld the appellate court’s application of stare decisis, as the facts and issues were substantially identical to the previously decided case of GSIS v. Villaviza. The legal logic centered on the proper classification of the employees’ activity. For an act to be considered a “prohibited concerted activity or mass action” under CSC Resolution No. 02-1316, it must be undertaken with the intent to effect a work stoppage or service disruption to force concessions from the government agency. The Court found that the gathering of employees, while during office hours and disruptive, was primarily to show moral support for colleagues facing an administrative hearing. The evidence did not establish that the assembly was intended to paralyze GSIS operations or coerce management. Without proof of such specific intent to disrupt services as a bargaining tool, the activity could not be classified as the grave offense alleged. The acts were more appropriately categorized as a violation of internal office rules warranting a lighter penalty. The Court also found no merit in GSIS’s procedural arguments regarding the respondent’s failure to file an answer, as administrative due process is satisfied as long as the party is given an opportunity to be heard, which she was through her response to the initial memorandum.