University of the Philippines College of Law

JTR, 1-D

Topic Publication and Effectivity

Case No. G.R. No. 170463
Case Name Board of Trustees of GSIS v. Velasco
Ponente Carpio

FACTS
On 23 May 2002, petitioners charged respondents administratively with grave misconduct and placed them under
preventive suspension for 90 days. Respondents were charged for their alleged participation in the demonstration held by
some GSIS employees denouncing the alleged corruption in the GSIS and calling for the ouster of its president and general
manager, petitioner Winston F. Garcia.

In a letter dated 4 April 2003, respondent Mario I. Molina (respondent Molina) requested GSIS Senior Vice President
Concepcion L. Madarang (SVP Madarang) for the implementation of his step increment. On 22 April 2003, SVP Madarang
denied the request citing GSIS Board Resolution No. 372 (Resolution No. 372) issued by petitioner Board of Trustees of the
GSIS (petitioner GSIS Board) which approved the new GSIS salary structure, its implementing rules and regulations, and the
adoption of the supplemental guidelines on step increment and promotion. The pertinent provision of Resolution No. 372
provides: The step increment adjustment of an employee who is on preventive suspension shall be withheld until such time
that a decision on the case has been rendered.

Respondents also asked that they be allowed to avail of the employee privileges under GSIS Board Resolution No. 306
(Resolution No. 306) approving Christmas raffle benefits for all GSIS officials and employees effective year 2002.
Respondents’ request was again denied because of their pending administrative case.

On 27 August 2003, petitioner GSIS Board issued Board Resolution No. 197 (Resolution No. 197) approving the following
policy recommendations:
To adopt the policy that an employee with pending administrative case shall be disqualified from the following during the
pendency of the case:
a) Promotion; b) Step Increment; c) Performance-Based Bonus; and d) Other benefits and privileges.”

[there are 3 Board Resolutions in total]

Respondents filed with the trial court a petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Their
contentions:
 they were denied the benefits which GSIS employees were entitled under Resolution No. 306.
 Respondents also sought to restrain and prohibit petitioners from implementing Resolution Nos. 197 and 372.
Respondents claimed that the denial of the employee benefits due them on the ground of their pending
administrative cases violates their right to be presumed innocent and that they are being punished without
hearing.
 Respondent Molina also added that he had already earned his right to the step increment before Resolution No.
372 was enacted.
 Respondents also argued that the three resolutions were ineffective because they were not registered with the
University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code of 1987.

Trial Court  GRANTED respondents petition for prohibition. Board Resolutions 197 and 372 are hereby declared null and
void.
 On the issue of JD  the trial court said it can take cognizance of the petition because the “territorial area”
referred to in Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court “does not necessarily delimit to a particular locality but
rather to the judicial region where the office or agency is situated so that the prohibitive writ can be enforced.”
 University of the Philippines College of Law
JTR, 1-D

 The trial court ruled that respondents were entitled to all employee benefits as provided under the law by reason
of their employment. According to the trial court, to deny respondents these employee benefits for the reason
alone that they have pending administrative cases is unjustified since it would deprive them of what is legally due
them without due process of law, inflict punishment on them without hearing, and violate their right to be
presumed innocent.
 The trial court also found that the assailed resolutions were not registered with the UP Law Center, per
certification of the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR). Since they were not registered, the
trial court declared that the assailed resolutions have not become effective citing Sections 3 and 4, Chapter 2,
Book 7 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987.

ISSUE
[MAIN] Whether internal rules and regulations need not require publication with the Office of the National [Administrative]
Register for their effectivity, contrary to the conclusion of the RTC-Manila, Branch 19.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue
Whether internal rules and
regulations need not
require publication with the
Office of the National
[Administrative] Register for
their effectivity, contrary to
the conclusion of the RTC-
Manila, Branch 19.
NO NEED FOR
PUBLICATION.
Whether the jurisdiction
over the subject matter of
Civil Case No. 03-
108389 lies with the Civil
Service Commission (CSC)
and not with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 19.
RTC
Whether a Special Civil
Action for Prohibition
against the GSIS Board or its
President and General
Manager exercising quasi-
legislative and
Ratio
Petitioners also argue that Resolution Nos. 372, 197, and 306 need not be filed with the UP
Law Center ONAR since they are, at most, regulations which are merely internal in nature—
regulating only the personnel of the GSIS and not the public.
Not all rules and regulations adopted by every government agency are to be filed with the
UP Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent character are to be filed. According
to the UP Law Center’s guidelines for receiving and publication of rules and regulations,
“interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the Administrative agency and not the public,” need not be filed with the UP
Law Center.
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. Clearly, the assailed resolutions pertained only to
internal rules meant to regulate the personnel of the GSIS. There was no need for the
publication or filing of these resolutions with the UP Law Center.
Civil Case No. 03-108389 is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. Respondents prayed that the trial court declare all acts emanating
from Resolution Nos. 372, 197, and 306 void and to prohibit petitioners from further
enforcing the said resolutions. Therefore, the trial court, not the CSC, has jurisdiction over
respondents’ petition for prohibition (based on sections 2 and 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court
 Sec. 4. Where petition [for prohibition] filed.—The petition may be filed not later
than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it related to acts or omissions of a lower court
or of a corporation, board, officer or person in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court
The petition for prohibition filed by respondents is a special civil action which may be filed in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the regional trial court, as
the case may be. 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. Since respondent Velasco,
 University of the Philippines College of Law
JTR, 1-D

administrative functions in plaintiff before the trial court, is a resident of the City of Manila, the petition could properly
Pasay City is outside the be filed in the City of Manila (Section 2, Rule 4, RoC)
territorial jurisdiction of
RTC-Manila, Branch 19.

NO.
Whether or not First, entitlement to step increment depends on the rules relative to the grant of such
respondents are entitled to benefit. In this case, it is the length of service. A grant of step increment on the basis of
the step increment. length of service requires that an employee must have rendered at least three years of
continuous and satisfactory service in the same position to which he is an incumbent. To
YES. determine whether service is continuous, it is necessary to define what actual service is.
“Actual service” refers to the period of continuous service since the appointment of the
official or employee concerned, including the period or periods covered by any previously
approved leave with pay.

Second, while there are no specific rules on the effects of preventive suspension on step
increment, we can refer to the CSC rules and rulings on the effects of the penalty of
suspension and approved vacation leaves without pay on the grant of step increment for
guidance.

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. This is
because a person under penalty of suspension is not rendering actual service. The CSC has
taken this to mean that the computation of the three year period requirement will only be
extended by the number of days that the employee was under suspension. In other words,
the grant of step increment will only be delayed by the same number of days that the
employee was under suspension. (akin to the status of an employee who incurred vacation
leave without pay for purposes of the grant of step increment.

Also note that preventive suspension is not a punishment. It is a measure intended to enable
the disciplinary authority to investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter
from intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against him. The Revised Admin Code
of 1987 provides that “When the administrative case against the officer or employee under
preventive suspension is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of
ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential
appointee, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service”

IN SHORT: The grant of step increment will only be delayed for the same number of days,
which must not exceed 90 days, that an official or employee was serving the preventive
suspension.

RULING
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the 24 September 2004 Decision and the 7 October
2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19 in Civil Case No. 03-108389. We DECLARE the assailed
provisions on step increment in GSIS Board Resolution Nos. 197 and 372 VOID. We MODIFY the 24 September 2004
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19 and rule that GSIS Board Resolution Nos. 197, 306 and 372 need
not be filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center.

SO ORDERED.