Title
Davao City Water District vs. Aranjuez
Case
G.R. No. 194192
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2015
DCWD employees wore protest t-shirts and posted grievances, leading to administrative charges. SC upheld freedom of expression, ruled no mass action, and deemed penalties excessive.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194192)

Petitioner

Davao City Water District, through its General Manager Rodora N. Gamboa

Respondents

Rodrigo L. Aranjuez, Gregorio S. Cagula, Celestino A. Bondoc, and over fifty other NAMADACWAD officers and members

Key Dates

– May 16, 2007: NAMADACWAD pickets DCWD during lunch breaks
– October 31, 2007: GM Gamboa issues memorandum designating sports attire for anniversary activities
– November 9, 2007: NAMADACWAD members wear t-shirts bearing grievances and allegedly post bond papers outside designated areas
– January 14, 2009: CSC Resolution partly grants respondents’ appeal
– October 7, 2010: Court of Appeals affirms CSC Resolution
– June 16, 2015: Supreme Court renders its final disposition

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution: freedom of expression (Art. III, §4), right to self-organization and peaceful concerted activities (Art. XIII, §3)
– Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code), Book V, Section 46
– CSC Resolution No. 991936 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), Rule IV, Section 52
– CSC Resolution No. 021316 (Omnibus Rules on Prohibited Concerted Mass Actions in the Public Sector), Sections 5–6
– CSC Memorandum Circular No. 33 (1994) on posting of union materials
– DCWD Office Memorandum (February 8, 1996) designating bulletin boards

Factual Background

NAMADACWAD officers and members staged pickets in mid-2007 over unpaid Collective Negotiation Agreement incentives and objections to privatization. For DCWD’s 34th anniversary fun run on November 9, 2007, GM Gamboa instructed employees to wear any sports attire. Respondents wore union t-shirts reading “CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!” and, allegedly, attached grievance posters on non-designated bulletin areas.

Procedural History

  1. DCWD’s Hearing Committee found respondents guilty of serious administrative offenses and recommended penalties from suspension to dismissal.
  2. GM Gamboa adopted the recommendation with modifications, dismissing Aranjuez, Cagula, and Bondoc for second offenses.
  3. Respondents appealed to the CSC, invoking constitutional rights to expression and petition for redress.
  4. CSC partly granted relief: downgraded offenses to “Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations” punishable by reprimand; sustained liability for posting outside designated areas.
  5. DCWD filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC decision in full.
  6. DCWD elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Issue

Whether respondents’ wearing of grievance-inscribed t-shirts and alleged posting of bond papers outside designated areas violated CSC rules and warranted serious administrative penalties, including dismissal.

Civil Service Commission Ruling

– Wearing grievance t-shirts during office hours was not a prohibited concerted mass action under CSC Resolution No. 021316 (no intent to disrupt work) but violated reasonable office rules → offense punishable by reprimand.
– Posting outside designated areas breached MC No. 33; union officers held solidarily liable.
– Offenses lacked vulgar or defamatory language, thus were “not serious in nature.”

Court of Appeals Ruling

– Agreed that respondents’ concerted activity did not amount to prohibited mass action (CSC Resolution No. 021316, Section 5 requires intent to effect work stoppage).
– Confirmed that DCWD’s designated-area rule was a reasonable office regulation; breach merited reprimand, not dismissal.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Procedural Compliance
    • Respondents’ consolidated memorandum sufficed to perfect their appeal despite missing formal notice and appeal fee proof. Public interest and security of tenure warranted relaxing technical requirements.
  2. Free Expression and Concerted Activity
    • Under the 1987 Constitution, government employees retain freedom of expression, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances, subject to reasonable regulation.
    • CSC Resolution No. 021316’s definition of prohibited mass action (Section 5) requires intent to disrupt service. Mere wearing of protest t-shirts during a fun run, as permitted sports attire, did not meet that thre





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms