Davao City Water District v Aranjuez

7/24/2019 Davao City Water District v Aranjuez

1/18

EN BANC

G.R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERA

!ANAGER, RODORA N. GA!BOA, Petitioner, v.RODRIGO .

ARANJ"E#, GREGORIO S. CAG"A, CEESTINO A. BONDOC, DANIO

. B"$AY, PEDRO E. ACAA, JOSEP$ A. VADE#, TITO V.

SABANGAN, !ARCEINO B. ANINO, J"ANITO C. PANSACAA,

JOE!ARIE B. ABA, ANTERO !. Y!AS, ROANDO . ARGO,

RENEBOY ". ESTEBAN, !AN"E B. IBANG, RO!EORICO A.

ANOS, ART$"R C. BAC$IER, SOCRATES V. CORC"ERA,

AEJANDRO C. PIC$ON, GRACIANO A. !ONCADA, ROANDO %.

ESCORIA, NOE A. DAGAE, E!IIO S. !OINA, S$ERWIN S.

SOA!O, &"GENCIO I. DYG"A#O, G"ABERTO S. PAGATPAT,

JOSEP$ B. ARTAJO, &EI'BERTO (. OBEN#A, &ORANTE A.

&ERRAREN, ESA A. EORDE, CAROS P. !ORRE, JA!ES A("IINO

!. COO!A, JOA("IN O. CADORNA, JR., ORNA !. !A'INO,

RO!"O A. REYES, NOE G. EGASPI, EEANOR R. A!OSTE,

WE!ER E. CRASCO, DEIO T. OAER, VICENTE R. !AS"CO,

IRENEO A. C"BA, EDWIN A. DEA PENA, JI!!Y A. TROCIO,

WI&REDO . TORREON, AEJANDRITO !. AO, RA" S. SAGA,

JOSEITO P. RICONAA, TRISEBA (. AG"IAR, AR!AN N.

OREN#O, SR. AND PEDRO C. G"NTING, Respondents.

R E S O " T I O N

PERE#,J.)

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1

of the Decision2

of the TwentyThird Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. P !o. "2#$%-&'! dated #

(cto)er 2"1", a*r+in the 1 anuary 2""$ Resolution !o. "$-""#

rendered )y the Civil ervice Co++ission /CC0.

The Facts

Petitioner Davao City ater District /DCD0 is a overn+ent-owned and

controlled corporation in Davao City represented )y its General &anaer

nr. Rodora !. Ga+)oa /G& Ga+)oa0.

The private respondents, na+ely, Rodrio 3. Aran4ue5, Greorio . Caula,

Celestino A. 6ondoc, Danilo 3. 6uhay, Pedro . Alcala, oseph A. 7alde5, Tito

7. a)anan, &arcelino 6. Anino, uanito C. Pansacala, oe+arie 6. Al)a,

Antero &. 8+as, Rolando 3. 3aro, Rene)oy 9. ste)an, &anuel 6. 3i)an,

Ro+eorico A. 3lanos, Arthur C. 6achiller, ocrates 7. Corcuera, Ale4andro C.

Pichon, Graciano A . &oncada, Rolando :. scorial, !oel A. Daale, +ilio

. &olina, herwin . ola+o, ;ulencio '. Dyua5o, Gual)erto . Paatpat,

oseph 6. Arta4o, ;eliuilino &. Colo+a, oa>uin (. Cadorna, r., 3orna &.

&a


2/18

inscriptions FC!A 'ncentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa NaF at the

)einnin of the ;un Run at 7ictoria Pla5a at around @%" in the +ornin

and continued to wear the sa+e inside the pre+ises of the DCD o*ce

durin the o*ce hours. Also, one of the +e+)ers of the 6oard of Directors

of !A&ADACAD Greorio . Caula /Caula0, with the help of so+e of its

+e+)ers, attached si+ilar inscriptions and posters of e+ployees?

rievances to a post in the +otor pool area, an area not a+on the

o*cially desinated placesHfor postin of rievances as prescri)ed )y

DCD?s (*ce &e+orandu+@

dated E ;e)ruary 1$$@ and pursuant to CC&e+orandu+ Circular !o. %%,#eries of 1$$ /&C !o. %%0.Echanro)leslaw

As a conse>uence of their actions, G& Ga+)oa sent a &e+orandu+ dated

1 !ove+)er 2""# addressed to the o*cers and +e+)ers of

!A&ADACAD, re>uirin the+ to e


3/18

&C !o. %%. 6y reason of Caula?s position, the other o*cers of

!A&ADACAD were considered as havin areed and conspired to co++it

the said act and as such are as lia)le as Caula.

(n the other hand, and contrary to the assertions of DCD, the violations

co++itted )y the private respondents are not serious in nature due to the

lac of any a)usive, vular, defa+atory or li)elous lanuae. The

dispositive portion readschanRo)lesvirtual3awli)rary

BR;(R, the Consolidated Appeal Iled )y Rodrio 3. Aran4ue5, et al. isPART38 GRA!TD. The (rders dated &arch 1$, 2""E issued )y the General

&anaer Rodora !. Ga+)oa Indin appellants uilty of 7iolation of

uin (. Cadorna, r., 3orna &. &a


4/18

The ourt a *uoerred in rulin that Resolution !o. "21%1@ and &C !o. %%

are considered Freasona)le o*ce rules and reulationsF within the purview

of ection H2 C J%K of the 9nifor+ Rules on Ad+inistrative Cases.

'7.

The ourt a *uoerred in rulin that respondents? act of postin white )ond

papers with union-related inscriptions on their t-shirts while inside the

o*ce pre+ises does not constitute serious violation of Civil ervice Rules)ut only a violation of Reasona)le (*ce Rules and Reulations, despite the

fact that the said &e+orandu+ Circular !o. %% is a CC-issued

&e+orandu+ and not DCD-issued Rules.

7.

The ourt a *uoerred in rulin that &C !o. %% was not violated )y

respondent Greorio . Caula and the rest of the o*cials of

!A&ADACAD who were chared in DCD Ad+inistrative case !o. %-

2""#.

7'.

The ourt a *uoerred in not tain into consideration that respondents

Aran4ue5, Caula and 6ondoc were second-ti+e oenders who were

previously chared and penali5ed for violation of &C !o. %%, there)y

4ustifyin their dis+issal fro+ the service.

7''.

The ourt a *uoerred when it failed to rule on the issue of whether the

decisions of a overn+ent aency, actin as Disciplinin Authority, in

disciplinary cases are i++ediately e


5/18

u)stantial 4ustice, in other words +ust prevail. 'n Paler,%e

saidchanRo)lesvirtual3awli)rary

hen su)stantial 4ustice dictates it, procedural rules +ay )e rela


6/18


7/18

)e a violation of their rihts and interests. Civil ervice does not deprive

the+ of their freedo+ of euirin all e+ployees to reister their daily attendance, in

the Chronolo Ti+e Recorder &achine /CTR&0 and in the lo)oo of their

respective o*ces. ;ollowin Resolution !o. $$1$%@ that violation of

reasona)le rules and reulations is a liht oense, the Court penali5ed its

errin e+ployees with the penalty of repri+and.$chanro)leslaw

Thus, in line with the civil service rules and 4urisprudence, we conclude

that a violation of an o*ce +e+orandu+, which was issued as an internal

rule to reulate the area for postin of rievances inside the o*ce pre+ise,

is only a liht oense punisha)le )y repri+and.

Rules and reulations are issued to attain har+ony, s+ooth operation,

+auoted provision, there

is no roo+ for construction or interpretation. The letter +ust )e taen to

+ean e


8/18

scorial, !oel A. Daale, +ilio . &olina, herwin . ola+o, and

;ulencio '. Dyua5o are here)y REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.

The Indin of lia)ility aainst the casual e+ployees na+ely dwin A. dela

Pena, u++y A. Trocio, ilfredo 3. Torreon, Ale4andrito &. Alo, Raul . aa,

oselito P. Riconalla, Trise)al =. Auilar, Ar+an !. 3oren5o, r. and Pedro C.

Guntin is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.

As to o*cers Gual)erto . Paatpat, oseph 6. Arta4o, ;eliuilino &.

Colo+a, oa>uin (. Cadorna, r., 3orna &. &a


9/18

or result in the disruption of wor or service.

22CA rollo, pp. %@%-%$.

2%'d. at @-E2.

2'd. at E1-E2.

2H

W$ERE&ORE,pre+ises considered, the Appeal is here)y DENIED, andthe anuary 1, 2""$ Resolution !o. "$-""# rendered )y the Civil ervice

Co++ission is here)yA&&IR!EDin totoL id. at #$".

2@'d. at #EH-#E@.

2#Se3+on 46.Perfetion of an +ppeal. O To perfect an appeal, the

appellant shall within Ifteen /1H0 days fro+ receipt of the decision su)+it

the followinchanRo)lesvirtual3awli)rary

a. !otice of appeal which shall speciIcally state the date of the decision

appealed fro+ and the date of receipt thereofL

). Three /%0 copies of appeal +e+orandu+ containin the rounds relied

upon for the appeal, toether with the certiIed true copy of the decision,

resolution or order appealed fro+, and certiIed copies of the docu+ents or

evidenceL

c. Proof of service of a copy of the appeal +e+orandu+ to the disciplinin

o*ceL

d. Proof of pay+ent of the appeal feeL and

e. A state+ent or certiIcate of non-foru+

shoppin.chanro)lesvirtuallawli)rary;ailure to co+ply with any of the a)ove re>uire+ents within the

rele+entary period shall )e construed as failure to perfect an appeal and

shall cause its dis+issal.

2E+dalim v. ani-as, G.R. !o. 1$E@E2, 1" April 2"1%, @$H CRA @E, @H@.

2$C(!T'T9T'(!, Article ''' 6ill of Rihts, ection . !o law shall )e passed

a)ridin the freedo+ of speech, of ee5ishian

v. Board of Regents of ?niversit5 of $tate of New @ork, %EH 9 HE$, @"H-

@"@, 1$@#.


10/18

@Borough of Dur5ea, Penns5lvania v. uarnieri, 1%1 . Ct. 2EEL 1E" 3. d.

2d "EL 2"11 9.. 3Q' H@L #$ 9..3.. H%EL %2 ' ..R. Cas. /6!A0 E1L

1$" 3.R.R.&. %21#L 22 ;la. 3. eely ;ed. 11#@, 2" une 2"11 citin

Connic, @1 9.. 1%E, 1"% . Ct. 1@E, #H 3. d. 2d #"E, >e5ishian v.

Board of Regents of ?niversit5 of $tate of New @ork, %EH 9.. HE$, @"H-@"@,

E# . Ct. @#H, 1# 3. d. 2d @2$ /1$@#0 and aretti v. Ce"allos, H# 9..

1", 1E, 12@ . Ct. 1$H1, 1@ 3. d. 2d @E$ /2""@0.

#

$I$ v. /illaviza, supra note 1, at %".

E9nifor+ Rules on Ad+inistrative Cases in the Civil ervice.

$In R42 3ailure of /arious 4mplo5ees to Register their ime of +rrival

and6or Departure 3rom 78e in the Chronolog Mahine, @@ Phil. 1E

/2"1"0.

H"'d.

H19nifor+ Rules on Ad+inistrative Cases in the Civil ervice.

H2CArollo, pp. 1E1-2"E.

H%9nifor+ Rules on Ad+inistrative Cases in the Civil ervice.

HNippon 4Apress 0Philippines1 Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, G.R. !o. 1$@$"#, 1% &arch 2"1%, @$% CRA H@, @, citin Rizal

Commerial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate +ppellate Court and B3

=omes, In., %#E Phil. 1", 22 /1$$$0.

CONC"RRING OPINION

EONEN,J.)

' concur in the result.

This case involves freedo+ of e


11/18

that is, e


12/18

e read this constitutional provision on the riht to freedo+ of e


13/18

/60 The Civil ervice Co++ission shall adopt positive +easures to pro+ote

/10 o)servance, of these standards includin the disse+ination of

infor+ation prora+s and worshops authori5in +erit increases )eyond

reular proression steps, to a li+ited nu+)er of e+ployees reconi5ed )y

their o*ce colleaues to )e outstandin in their o)servance of ethical

standardsL and /20 continuin research and euivalent to the Govern+ent. (ther corporations have

)een created )y overn+ent to act as its aents for the reali5ation of its

prora+s, the , G', !AAA and the !'A, to count a few, and yet, the

Court has ruled that these entities, althouh perfor+in functions ai+ed at

pro+otin pu)lic interest and pu)lic welfare, are not overn+ent-function

corporations invested with overn+ental attri)utes. t ma$ thus be said

that the (CDA is not a mere agenc$ of the "o#ernment but a

corporate bod$ performing proprietar$ functions.22/+phasis

supplied0

Govern+ent-(wned and controlled corporations also e


14/18

uidelines for the e


15/18

E'd.

$Pres. Decree !o. 2 /1$#0, sec. 2#@.

1"2"$ Phil. 1 /1$E%0 JPer . Gutierre5, r., n 6ancK.

11'd. at 21.

12'd. at 1@.

1%+rizala v. Court of +ppeals, G.R. !os. 3-%@%%-%, epte+)er 1, 1$$",

1E$ CRA HE, H$H JPer . !arvasa, ;irst DivisionK, iting3A6(R C(D, art.

22L )oo 7, rule 11, sec. 1, '+ple+entin Rules and Reulations, as

a+ended )y sec. %. '+ple+entin Rules and Reulations,


16/18

"21%1@ and &e+orandu+ Circular !o. %%L2and second, respondent union

o*cer Greorio . Caula /FCagulaF0 and all other !A&ADACAD union

o*cers for alleedly attachin on the sa+e date union posters with the

sa+e inscription outside desinated areas in violation of DCD?s (*ce

&e+orandu+ dated E ;e)ruary 1$$@ /F-%ce emorandumF0 pursuant

to &e+orandu+ Circular !o. %%.

' su)+it that Caula and all other respondent union o*cers should )e

euence of events. As

shown, there were three /%0 persons standin close to one another facin

the post, with ar+s e


17/18

one of the+, 6oard Director of !A&ADACAD. hen they left the post, it

was shown that a white )ond paper with inscriptions FC!A 'ncentive ihata

na Director 6raan5a pahawa naF was already attached to the post. All

these show that there is su)stantial evidence to conclude that respondent

Greorio . Caula was responsi)le to the postin of )anner.12

' disaree with this conclusion. 9nfortunately, the photoraphs do not for+

part of the records for the Court to euestion is, did you see so+e)ody who posted those

postersS

&s. Du+ala Those were posted already.

Atty. 3opo5 Did vou see who posted theseS

&s. Du+ala ' cannot recall, )ut...

Atty. 3opo5 (ay, than you. o you cannot recall and perhaps )y your

recollection as you have +entioned earlier that the pictures would tell. o

you so+ehow presu+ed that so+e)ody fro+ those people you have taen

pictures posted that postersS

&s. Du+ala ' did.

< < uence of eventsF

constitutin Fsu)stantial evidence


18/18

&r. 3eonida ala /No0, ir.

Atty. 3opo5 o i+oha lan yud i-pituran na naapilit na siya /$o 5ou

#ust purel5 took pitures when it was alread5 posted0S

&r. 3eonida 8es, ir.

Atty. 3opo5 Pero wala yud a naaita un insa yud na)utan ana/But 5ou atuall5 did not see who plaed that0S

&r. 3eonida 8es, ir.

< <

Documents

Davao City Water District v Aranjuez