G.R. No. 196564 - Government Service Insurance System vs. Velasco

Albert M. Velasco (Velasco) and Mario I. Molina (Molina), both Attorneys V at Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), were charged administratively for grave misconduct allegedly committed by aiding employees in protests against GSIS management under then GSIS President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia (PGM Garcia).
Velasco and Molina were preventively suspended for ninety (90) days without pay. A committee was formed to investigate the charges.
Velasco and Molina filed a Petition to Transfer Investigation to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and a motion to lift preventive suspension. The CSC denied both motions, instructing GSIS to proceed with investigation.
They then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA), which restrained GSIS from hearing and investigating their administrative cases.
This restraint was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on August 10, 2010 (G.R. Nos. 157383 and 174137), emphasizing the required due process and preliminary investigation as conditions precedent to valid formal charges.

On June 29, 2004, GSIS SVP-Administration Concepcion L. Madarang issued a memorandum informing Velasco that he was disqualified from his post as GSIS Attorney due to conflict of interest with his election as union president of Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS (KMG). Velasco was advised to seek transfer or take an extended leave.
On July 1, 2004, a conflicting Office Order (OSVP Order No. 04-04) temporarily reassigned Velasco to augment legal officers at GSIS field offices in Zamboanga, Iligan, and Cotabato for ninety (90) days but also stated the order shall remain effective until further notice, creating ambiguity.
Velasco sought clarification, stating he could not assume field posting unless the disqualification memorandum was withdrawn.
GSIS responded by charging Velasco with insubordination and misconduct for failure to comply with contradictory memoranda.

On June 28, 2004, Velasco issued a memorandum as KMG president asserting contractual rights under the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA), opposing GSIS SVP Sagcal’s memorandum prohibiting union activities during office hours.
GSIS charged him with Gross Discourtesy for this letter.
Velasco replied asserting his rights and explaining his position.

Velasco filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC of Manila to prohibit enforcement of the reassignment order, summons for explanation of his replies, and formal charges. The RTC dismissed for improper venue (should be Pasay City).
While that petition was pending, GSIS proceeded with two formal charges (Adm. Case Nos. 04-009 and 04-010) and on September 1, 2004, dropped Velasco from the GSIS rolls on the ground of alleged 30-days continuous absence without approved leave (AWOL), a basis not included in formal charges.
Velasco filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with CA on September 15, 2004, assailing the reassignment, formal charges, and termination.
The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), which GSIS ignored, asserting that the dropping from rolls was already done.
On November 30, 2010, the CA declared void the reassignment order, the formal charges, and Velasco’s dismissal. It ordered his reinstatement with back salaries.

GSIS filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA’s decision on grounds including:

Velasco was guilty of forum shopping.
Velasco failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
GSIS actions were justified as union involvement of GSIS lawyers was allegedly prohibited by PSL-MC Resolution No. 02, s. 2005, issued after Velasco’s dismissal.

Whether Velasco was guilty of forum shopping in filing petitions before different courts.
Whether Velasco failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under civil service rules before seeking judicial relief.
Whether GSIS’s reassignment order, formal charges, and removal of Velasco from the GSIS rolls were void for lack of valid cause, bad faith, and violation of due process, or valid exercises of management prerogative.
Whether Velasco’s union activities and letters constituted gross discourtesy and insubordination.
Whether the PSL-MC Resolution disqualifying GSIS lawyers from union membership justified GSIS’s actions against Velasco despite its issuance after Velasco’s removal.