DCWD v. ARJANUEZ (IYA) 10. CSC partly granted the appeal.
It held that the collective act in wearings-shirts
June 16, 2015 | Perez, J. | Freedom of Expression
PETITIONER: Davao City Water District represented by GM Rodora Gamboa
RESPONDENTS: Rodrigo Aranjuez, Gregorio Cagula, et al.
SUMMARY: Members and Officers of NAMANDACWAD were suspended
and/or dismissed from employment because of wearing shirts and posting their
grievances during the anniversary celebration of DCWD.
ISSUE/s:
The CSC acting on appeal of the employees, ruled that the decision violated their
constitutional right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. The CA
and SC affirmed such.
RULING: Petition is DENIED.
Although under public employment, this does not tantamount to waiving ones
right to express grievances.
RATIO:
DOCTRINE: The freedom to publish election surveys remains. All Resolution
No. 9674 does is articulate a regulation as regards the manner of publication, that
is, that the disclosure of those who commissioned and/or paid for, including those
subscribed to, published election surveys must be made.
FACTS:
1. Davao City Water District (DCWD) is a GOCC represented by its General
Manager Gamboa.
2. Private Respondents are members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Davao City
Water Disctrict (NAMANDACWAD)
3. NAMANDACWAD was charged with several administrative cases due to
acts committed during the anniversary celebration of DCWD such as wearing
of t-shirt with inscriptions bearing grievances of the employees and posting
of complaints outside designated places.
4. Said anniversary celebration was a fun run. The employees were required by
Gamboa to attend such instructing them to wear sports attire.
5. NAMADACWAD officers and members attended the event as required
wearing statement shirts for the only instruction was to wear sports attire.
6. Cagula, however, attached inscriptions and posters of employee’s grievances
to a post in an area not among the officially designated places for posting of
grievances as prescribed by DCWD’s Office Memorandum.
7. Gamboa field formal charges against the members and officers of
NAMADACWAD.
8. They were found guilty as charged with penalties raging from suspension to
dismissal from service to which Gamboa executed Orders.
9. On appeal before the CSC, Aranjuz, et al. pray to Suspend the Immediate
Execution of Orders. They also bring up the violation of their constitutional
rights to assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
with grievance inscriptions is not within the ambit prohibited mass action
punishable as there was no intent to work stoppage. The act can be considered
as punishable under the Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and
Regulations. Cagula’s posting was found violative of the DCWD
Memorandum, but it is not serious in nature due to the lack of any abusive,
vulgar, defamatory or libelous language.
11. Aggrieved, DCWD filed the a petition for Review with the CA. The CA
affirmed in toto the CSC resolution.
12. Hence, the present case.
1. WON the concerted or mass action committed by its employees was not
permissible - NO
1. A prohibited concerted mass action is defined in Resolution No. 021316 but
in Sec. 5 thereof.
2. The operative phrases are “any collective activity” and “work stoppage or
service disruption.”
3. Without the intent at work stoppage or service disruption, the concerted
activity is not prohibited. Whether done within government hours, a
concerted activity is allowed if it is without any intent at work stoppage.
4. It is clear that the collective activity of joining the fun run in tshirts with
inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to effect work stoppage or disrupt
the service. As pointed out by the respondents, they followed the advice of
GM Gamboa “to be there” at the fun run.
5. It is correct to conclude that those who enter government service are
subjected to a different degree of limitation on their freedom to speak
their mind; however, it is not tantamount to the relinquishment of their
constitutional right of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by
reason of their employment.
6. Unarguably, a citizen who accepts public employment “must accept certain
limitations on his or her freedom.”
7. There are some rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty that they cannot
be bargained away in a contract for public employment.
8. It is the Court’s responsibility to ensure that citizens are not deprived of
these fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government. A
regulation of the freedom of expression is not removal of the
constitutional right.