G.R. No. 194192 , June 16, 2015
Davao City Water District, represented by its General Manager, Rodora N. Gamboa v. Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, et al.

FACTS

Petitioner Davao City Water District (DCWD) is a government-owned and controlled corporation. The respondents are officers and members of the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Davao City Water District (NAMADACWAD). They were charged administratively for acts committed during DCWD’s anniversary celebration. The acts included wearing t-shirts with inscriptions stating “CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!” during a company-sponsored fun run and office hours, and posting papers with similar grievance inscriptions on a post in the motor pool area, which was not a designated area for such postings as prescribed by an office memorandum and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 33. These actions were in relation to the employees’ grievances concerning non-payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement incentives and opposition to privatization and a proposed loan. After hearings, DCWD found the respondents guilty of violating civil service rules, with penalties ranging from suspension to dismissal. The respondents appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC modified the decision, finding the respondents liable not for the serious offense charged, but for the lesser offense of “Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations,” and imposed lighter penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC resolution. DCWD elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the concerted act of the employees in wearing protest t-shirts during a company activity and office hours, and posting grievances in an undesignated area, constitutes a prohibited mass action or strike under civil service rules, or if such acts are protected expressions of free speech and the right to petition for redress of grievances.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that the employees’ acts did not constitute a prohibited mass action or strike. CSC Resolution No. 021316 defines a prohibited concerted mass action as one that results in a temporary stoppage of work or refusal to perform work. The employees’ wearing of protest t-shirts during the fun run and office hours did not disrupt work or cause a work stoppage; they reported to and performed their duties. Therefore, the act was not a mass action. However, the Court agreed with the CSC that the act of wearing the shirts during office hours violated reasonable office rules and regulations. Furthermore, the act of posting grievance materials in an undesignated area was a clear violation of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 33. The Court also ruled that the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly by government employees is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions related to their employment, such as maintaining discipline, decorum, and efficiency in the public service. The penalties imposed by the CSC for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations were deemed appropriate.