Admin-60-the Board Of Trustees Of Gsis V Velasco.pdf

60 The Board of Trustees of the GSIS v Velasco Publication and Effectivity | 2 Feb 2011 | Carpio, J. Nature of Case: Petition for Review Digest maker: ALIP, Alexyss SUMMARY: Molina and Velasco were administratively charged by the Board of Trustees of the GSIS (BoT) and were placed on preventive suspension. The BoT issued a resolution that disqualified GSIS employees who are serving preventive suspension from enjoying benefits such as the step increment and promotion. The resolution was assailed for violating their constitutional rights and for not having been registered with the ONAR and was thus without effect. While the SC ruled in favour of Molina and Velasco, it held that resolutions such as the one assailed need not be registered with the ONAR. DOCTRINE: Only those rules of general or of permanent character affecting the public are to be filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) FACTS:  23 May 2002 – The BoT charged Albert Velasco and Mario Molina administratively with grave misconduct for their alleged participation in the demonstration held by GSIS employees denouncing the alleged corruption in the GSIS and calling for the ouster of its president, Winston Garcia.  Velasco and Molina were both placed under preventive suspension for 90 days  4 Apr 2003 – Molina sent a letter to the GSIS Senior VP Madarang for the implementation of his step increment.  22 Apr 2003 – Molina's request was denied on the basis of Resolution No. 372 issued by the BoT, which approved the new GSIS salary structure. The Resolution provided that: o The step increment adjustment of an employee who is on preventive suspension shall be withheld until such time that a decision on the case has been rendered  Velasco and Molina likewise asked that they be allowed to avail of employee privileges under Resolution No. 306, which approved Christmas raffle benefits for all GSIS employees effective 2002. The same was denied due to their pending case.  27 Aug 2003 – BoT issued Resolution No. 197 which approved the following: o To adopt the policy that an employee with pending administrative case shall be disqualified from promotion, step increment, performance-based bonus and other benefits and privileges during the pendency of their administrative case  14 Nov 2003 – Velasco and Molina filed with the TC a petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging the following: o They were denied benefits which GSIS employees were entitled under Resolution No. 306 o The denial violates their right to be presumed innocent and that they were being punished without hearing o Molina has already earned his right to step increment prior to Reso No. 372 o The 3 resolutions (Reso Nos.197, 372 and 306) were ineffective as they were not registered with the UP Law Center pursuant to Revised Admin. Code (RAC) of 1987  24 Sep 2004 – The TC granted the petition and declared Reso Nos. 197 and 372 null and void on the following grounds: o To deny Velasco and Molina their benefits would be unjustified, violative of their right to be presumed innocent and would inflict punishment without hearing

Non-registration of the assailed resolutions made them non-effective as RAC Book 7, Ch. 2, Sections 3 and 4 requires registration with the ONAR. ISSUE/S & RATIO: 1. WON internal rules and regulations require publication with the ONAR for their effectivity-NO a. Not all rules and regulations adopted by every government agency are to be filed with the UP Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent character are to be filed. According to the UP Law Center’s guidelines for receiving and publication of rules and regulations, “interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the Administrative agency and not the public,” need not be filed with the UP Law Center. b. The assailed resolutions are merely internal in nature—regulating only the personnel of the GSIS and not the public. b.i. Resolution No. 372: GSIS salary structure b.ii. Resolution No. 306: Authority to pay Christmas Package b.iii. Resolution No. 197: Merit selection and promotion plan 2. WON jurisdiction over the subject matter lies with the RTC of Manila -YES a. Petition filed is one for prohibition and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Manila based on Rule 65, Sections 2 and 4 and BP 129 Sec. 21. Furthermore, it is also within its territorial jurisdiction based on SC Adm. Order 3. b. The petition is a personal action and thus venue maybe the plaintiff's residence, in this case, in Manila. 3. WON Velasco and Molina are entitled to step increment-YES a. The suspension is merely preventive and was not meant to serve as a penalty. Upon the termination of the 90-day suspension, both should have been reinstated. b. The gap in their continuous service caused by such suspension merely delays the step increment. It does not reset the count of the requisite 3 years of continuous service to be entitled to the step increment. c. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be meted out the punishment of having their step increments revoked when the administrative case filed against them has not reached its conclusion. RULING: Petition DENIED. Trial court's decisions is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS insofar as such resolutions need not be registered with the ONAR as a requisite for their effecitvity. o

Related provisions SEC. 3. Filing.—(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party of persons. (2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to the public inspection. SEC. 4. Effectivity.—In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them.