Kinds of administrative rules and regulations

Board of Trustees v. Velasco

FACTS: Petitioners (GSIS Board) charged respondents (Velasco and Molina)
administratively with grave misconduct and placed them underpreventive suspension
for 90 days.
Velasco and Molina (Respondents) were charged for their alleged participation in
the corruption under the GSIS.
Molina requested GSIS Senior Vice President Madarang (SVP Madarang) for the
implementation of his step increment. 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.
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 year2002.
Respondents’ request was again denied because of their pending administrative
case.
On 2003, petitioner GSIS Board issued Board Resolution No. 197 (Resolution
No. 197). The said resolution adopts 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.
RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS:
1. That they were denied the benefits which GSIS employees were entitled under
Resolution No. 306.
2. Respondent Molina also added that he had already earned his right to the step
increment before Resolution No. 372 was enacted.
3. 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.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: (GSIS BOARD)
1. It was within their power to disqualify respondents for step increment and from
receiving GSIS benefits from the time formal administrative charges were filed
against them until the cases are resolved.

ISSUE: 1. W/N it was within the power of petitioner GSIS Board to

disqualify respondents for step increment and from receiving GSIS benefits
from the time formal administrative charges were filed against them until the
cases are resolved.
2. W/N there is a need for publication or filing of these resolutions with the UP Law
Center.

HELD: 1. No, the Court ruled that Resolution Nos. 197 and 372 were invalid.
A grant of step increment on the basis of 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.
While there are no specific rules on the effects of preventive suspension on step
increment, the court 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.
Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty.
It is 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.
If the investigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered within that
period, the suspension will be lifted and the respondent will automatically be reinstated.
In this case, respondents were placed under preventive suspension for 90 days.
Therefore, after serving the period of their preventive suspension and without
the administrative case being finally resolved, respondents should have been reinstated
and, after serving the same number of days of their suspension, entitled to the grant of
step increment.

2. NO. 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.