Case Digest (G.R. No. 196564)
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Albert M. Velasco, G.R. No. 196564, August 07, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner GSIS (through its officers including then President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia) instituted a series of administrative actions and personnel moves against respondent Albert M. Velasco, an Attorney V who had been elected president of the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS (KMG). Prior litigation between the parties produced two consolidated Supreme Court cases, G.R. Nos. 157383 and 174137, addressing earlier formal charges and preventive suspension; the Court in that litigation emphasized limits on disciplinary power and the need for preliminary investigation.
After a Court of Appeals decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 73170) perpetually restrained GSIS from hearing prior administrative charges against Velasco and a subsequent Civil Service Commission resolution directed the GSIS to continue investigations, GSIS issued two conflicting memoranda in 2004: a June 29 memorandum advising Velasco he could not hold the position of GSIS Attorney while serving as union president (suggesting transfer or leave), and OSVP Office Order No. 04-04 dated July 1, 2004 reassigning him to Zamboanga, Iligan and Cotabato field offices (stated both as a 90-day detail and “effective immediately and shall remain effective until further notice”).
Velasco, asserting a right under the GSIS–KMG Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA), sent a June 28, 2004 letter demanding the recall of a memorandum restricting union activities. GSIS responded with memoranda: one (July 9, 2004) accusing him of defiance and requiring explanation for alleged insubordination; and GSIS thereafter filed two formal charges—Adm. Case No. 04‑009 (Gross Discourtesy, Aug. 10, 2004) and Adm. Case No. 04‑010 (Insubordination and related offenses, Aug. 13, 2004). While Velasco continued to report at the Head Office and pursued judicial relief (an RTC petition for certiorari which was dismissed for improper venue), GSIS sent a September 1, 2004 letter dropping him from the rolls for supposed continuous absence without leave (AWOL) of over 30 days.
Velasco filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 86365), obtained a TRO, and sought to annul: OSVP Office Order No. 04‑04 (the reassignment), the two formal charges, and the dropping from the GSIS rolls. On November 30, 2010, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, declared the reassignment, the formal charges (Adm. Nos. 04‑009 and 04‑010), and the dropping from the rolls void, and ordered reinstatement (or placement in an equivalent post) with back salaries. The CA denied GSIS’s motion for reconsideration on April 1, 2011.
Petitioner GSIS filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the Supreme...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Velasco guilty of forum shopping when he filed his petition in the Court of Appeals?
- Did respondent fail to exhaust administrative remedies, or do recognized exceptions (e.g., patent illegality, violation of due process) apply to permit direct judicial relief?
- Were OSVP Office Order No. 04‑04 (reassignment), the Formal Charges (Adm. Case Nos. 04‑009 and 04‑010), and the dropping of Velasco from the GSIS rolls void for lack of valid cause, bad faith, or denial of due process, and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)