Board of Trustees of GSIS v. Velasco | G.R. No. 170463 | 2 February 2011 | PONENTE: Carpio, J.

Petitioner/s: Board of Trustees of GSIS; Winston Garcia

Respondent/s: Alberto Velasco, Mario Molina
Nature of the Case: a special civil action under certiorari
SUMMARY: Respondents were suspended for joining a demonstration against the GSIS and its Pres/GM. Later,
respondents asked for step increment and other benefits awarded to employees, but was denied. Because of this, they
filed a case to declare the resolutions enabling their disqualification to be voided. Supreme Court ruled that RTC has
jurisdiction over the case, that regulations pertaining to standards of conduct of government employees only do not
have to be published in the ONAR, and that to deprive an employee of a benefit due him or her because he/she is
under preventive suspension is unconstitutional.

FACTS:
- 23 May 2002: Petitioners GSIS charged Respondents Alberto Velasco and Mario Molina administratively with
grave misconduct and placed them under preventive suspension for 90 days
o Charged for their alleged participation in the demonstration held by GSIS employees denouncing the
alleged corruption of the GSIS, which called for the ouster of its president and GM: Petitioner Winston
Garcia
- 4 April 2003: Molina asked Senior Vice-Pres Concepcion Madarang for the implementation of Molina’s step-
increment.
- 22 April 2003: SVP Madarang denied, citing GSIS Board Resolution No. 372, which says to benefit from the step-
increment implementation, a person must not be preventively suspended.
o Molina also asked that he benefit from the employee privileges under the a GSIS Board Resolution No.
306 for the Christmas raffle, but was still denied.
- 27 August 2003: GSIS Board issued Board Resolution No. 197 regarding policy considerations
o basically, a person with a pending administrative case is disqualified for, among other things, the step
increment.
- 14 November 2003: respondents filed a case before the Trial Court a petition for prohibition, with a prayer for a
writ of preliminary injunction, stating that the denial of their benefits as employees because of a pending
administrative case is against their right to presumed innocent and that they are being punished without a hearing.
o Molina also added that he had already earned his right to the benefits before the implementation of
Resolution No. 372.
o Comment by Petitioners (24 Nov. 2003) with a motion to dismiss and opposition. 2 Dec. 2003: respondents
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. 5 Dec. 2003, pet. filed their reply
- 16 January 2004: TC denied motion to dismiss, granted respondent’s writ of preliminary injunction. MR was filed
and dismissed.
- 24 September 2004: TC granted petition for prohibition, declaring, in its dispositive portion, that Board Resolution
372 and 197 to be void. MR was filed, dismissed. Ratio:
o On the issue of jurisdiction: “territorial area” referred to in Sec 4 Rule 65 in RoC does not refer to a
particular locality but a judicial region
o On the merits: respondents are entitled to benefits as denial because of a pending administrative case
would be unjustified and a violation of due process
o IMPORTANT FACT RELATED TO ADMIN: Resolutions were not filed with the Office of National
Administrative Register and has therefore not taken effect, according to Secs. 3 and 4, Ch 2, Book 7 of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987.

ISSUE + RULING:
1. Whether the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Civil Case lies with the Civil Service Commission and not the
RTC. NO, RTC has jurisdiction
- Petitioners: CSC has jurisdiction, not the RTC because it involves claims of employee benefits, and therefore RTC
should have dismissed the case
 - Court: The Civil Case is a petition for prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction:
completely within the jurisdiction of the RTC

2. Whether a Special Civil Action for Prohibition against the GSIS Board or its President and General Manager exercising
quasi-legislative and administrative functions in Pasay City is outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC-Manila, Branch
19. NO.
- Petitioners: Action for prohibition was filed in the wrong territorial jurisdiction, because the acts sought to be
prohibited are the acts of petitioners who hold their principal office in Pasay City
- Court: The petition for prohibition filed by respondents is a special civil action which may be filed in the SC, the
CA, the Sandiganbayan or the RTC, as the case may be.
o It is also a personal action because it does not affect the title to, or possession of real property, or interest
therein. Thus, it may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides,
or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
 SC defines the territory over which the RTC shall exercise its authority (Sec 18 of BP 129), and
through AM No. 3,
o Since respondent Velasco, plaintiff before the trial court, is a resident of the City of Manila, the petition
could properly be filed in the City of Manila.
 The choice of venue is sanctioned by Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
o Sec 21(1) of BP 129 provides for RTC’s original jurisdiction over writs of prohibition which may be enforced
in their respective region
o Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction: (1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction, which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; x x
x (Emphasis supplied)
o Since Pasay (where the acts originated from) and Manila are in the same region (NCR), then RTC of Manila
has jurisdiction over the action

3. Whether the internal rules and regulations need not publication with ONAR for their effectivity. NO.
- Petitioners: they need not be published because they are, at most, regulations internal in nature, regulating only
the GSIS personnel and not the public.
- Court agrees, stating that not all rules and regulations adopted by government agencies or instrumentalities have
to be filed with the ONAR, according to the UP Law Center’s guidelines
o Resolution No. 372 was about the new GSIS salary structure, Resolution No. 306 was about the authority
to pay the 2002 Christmas Package, and Resolution No. 197 was about the GSIS merit selection and
promotion plan.
o Clearly, these are merely internal rules meant to regulate the personnel of GSIS

4. Whether a regulation, which disqualifies government employees who have pending administrative cases from the
grant of step increment and Christmas raffle benefits is unconstitutional. NO.
- Petitioners: it is within the power of the GSIS to disqualify respondents
- Court: It is to note that the Trial Court ruled only on Resolution No. 372 and 197, and not on Resolution No. 306,
so the Court focused on the first two, particularly to the effects of preventive suspension on the grant of step
increment because this was what respondents raised before the trial court.
o First: entitlement to step increments are outlined in Sec. 1(b), Rule II and Sec. 2, Rule III of Joint Circular
No. 1, series of 1990
 Requires three years of continuous and satisfactory service
o Second: Court used CSC rules on the penalty of suspension
 If an employee is suspended as a penalty, it effectively interrupts the continuity of his government
service at the commencement of the service of the said suspension
 However, this does not mean that the employee will only be entitled to the step increment after
completing another three years of continuous satisfactory service reckoned from the time the
employee has fully served the penalty of suspension.
  the grant of step increment will only be delayed by the same number of days that the employee
was under suspension.
 Akin to status of a person on vacation leave.
o Third: Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty. merely a measure intended to enable
the disciplining authority to investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from
intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against him.
 Therefore, on the matter of step increment, if an employee who was suspended as a penalty will
be treated like an employee on approved vacation leave without pay, then it is only fair and
reasonable to apply the same rules to an employee who was preventively suspended, more so
considering that preventive suspension is not a penalty.
 If employee is placed under preventive suspension, employee is not rendering actual service and
this will also effectively interrupt the continuity of his government service. Consequently, an
employee who was preventively suspended will still be entitled to step increment after serving
the time of his preventive suspension even if the pending administrative case against him has not
yet been resolved or dismissed.
- TC was correct in declaring that respondents had the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means
that an employee who has a pending administrative case filed against him is given the benefit of the doubt and is
considered innocent until the contrary is proven
o Preventive suspension 90 days after its implementation, and the asking of the benefits was almost a year
after. The fact that, after 90 days, there was no resolution to the case should have meant that the
suspension be lifted and the benefits be given.

DISPOSITION: Petition is denied, Decision is AFFIRMED

NOTES: