GARCIA,
Delia G.
Re: Insubordination;
Appeal
x------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION NO. 030811
Delia G. Garcia, Professor VI, Isabela State University (ISU), Echague,
Isabela, appeals from the decision dated May 24, 2000, of the Civil Service
Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. II, Tuguegarao City, finding her guilty
of Insubordination for which she was imposed the penalty of fine equivalent to
one (1) month of her salary; and the decision dated September 13, 2000, denying
her motion for reconsideration.
Said May 24, 2000, decision reads, in part, as follows:
“Let it be emphasized that
the authority to travel, the authority to attend meetings and conferences and
the grant to go on vacation leave are subjected (sic) to the discretion of the
head of the agency/institution.
“The disapproval of the travel necessarily
means that the employee is not allowed to travel or to leave the workplace. Such
is an order for the employee to stay at the workplace.
“To travel on official Business (sic) and
to travel on official time have the same effect, as when one goes on leave. That
is, one necessarily leaves the workplace. When one’s travel is disapproved
then he applies for a forced leave, is it not circumventing the very purpose of
not allowing one to travel.
“When Ms. Garcia’s authority to travel
was disapproved she opted to file an application for leave. Necessarily, because
to go on travel and to go on leave have the same effect of leaving the
workplace, such will also be disapproved. Conclusively, Ms. Garcia refused to
obey the order for her to stay at the workplace.
“WHEREFORE, MS. DELIA GARCIA is hereby
held liable with (sic) the administrative offense of Insubordination. Thus, she
is meted the penalty of fine equivalent to one month salary.”
Garcia anchors her appeal on the following
grounds:
“1.
The Decision was (sic) not supported by sufficient evidence to support (sic) a
finding of guilt;
“2.
The testimony of the witnesses (sic) for the complainant is tainted with
bias;
“3.
Errors of law have been committed prejudicial to the interests (sic) of
Respondent-Appellant; and
“4.
Failure to appreciate the mitigating circumstances in favor of herein
Respondent-Appellant.”
At the outset, it must be pointed out that under Section 52 (B) 5 of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the offense of
Insubordination is punishable by suspension from the service for a period of one
(1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal
from the service for the second offense. Obviously then, the CSCRO No. II erred,
among other errors, when it imposed upon Garcia the penalty of fine in an amount
equivalent to her one (1) month salary after supposedly finding her guilty of
Insubordination.
It may be relevant to mention that Garcia’s appeal is utterly wanting
as it does not raise any plausible and persuasive argument/s in her favor. The
discussion and arguments advanced are irrelevant, immaterial and not in any way
determinative of the issue whether she is culpable for Insubordination, the
offense of which she was found guilty. Be
that as it may, the Commission disregarded such an infirmity and instead
assiduously studied and evaluated the entire records of the case so that justice
be done to whom it is due. This is so because, as a rule, whenever a decision is
subjected to an appeal, the entire case is thrown open to review by the
appellate body which, in the instant case, is the Commission.
The salient facts, as borne out by the records, may be summarized as
follows:
Sometime in May 1997, Garcia, who was then the President of the Isabela
State University—Echague Faculty Association (ISUEFA), received an invitation
dated May 10, 1997, from Florie B. Gapido, Secretary of the National Federation
of Faculty Association in State Universities and Colleges (NFFASUC) for the
former to attend the “General
Assembly” of the members of the “SUC
Faculty Federation” to be held in Cebu City on June 9-11, 1997. Said
invitation reads, in part, as follows:
“TO:
ALL SUC FACULTY ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS
“There
shall be a General Assembly of all SUC Faculty Federation
members on
June 9-11,
1997 (re:
CHED’s and
PASUC President’s Memo dated April 30 and May 5, 1997 respectively) at
Cebu Grand Hotel, Cebu City.
x
x x
“Your
utmost cooperation and participation is hereby enjoined.”
Garcia also received a memorandum dated May 5, 1997, from Frederick SO.
Pada, President of the Philippine Association of State Universities and
Colleges, the relevant portions of which read, as follows:
“1.
The 1997 PASUC General Assembly will be held at Cebu Grand Hotel, Cebu
City with Cebu State College and the Cebu State College of Science and
Technology as host institutions on June 9-11, 1997 with the theme ‘SUC
Response to the Challenges of the World Congress on Higher Education.’
“2.
Each SUC is authorized to send five (5) delegates, composed of President,
Vice-President, Presidents of Faculty and Administrative Associations and
Director of Research and Development.
x
x x
“4.
Registration fees, transportation expenses of participants and other
necessary expenses shall be charged against the respective funds of SUCs,
subject to the usual accounting and auditing rules and regulations.”
On account of the aforementioned invitations, Garcia prepared a “Travel
Order” to enable her to proceed to Cebu City on official time and to
receive travelling expenses from the Isabela State University (ISU). The
immediate supervisor of Garcia recommended approval of the said Travel Order to
then ISU President Rodolfo C. Nayga but the latter disapproved the same. The
disapproval of the Travel Order of Garcia prompted her to file on June 6, 1997,
an application for leave (forced leave) for a period of four days—June 7, 8,
9, and 13, 1997. This application for leave was also signed by Garcia’s
immediate supervisor but the same was again disapproved by Nayga although the
exact date of disapproval is not clearly indicated in the records.
In the meantime, or on June 5, 1997, the officers and members of the
ISUEFA issued an “Authorization/Resolution”
which partly reads, as follows:
“In
line with the goals and objectives of the ISUE Faculty Association, we do hereby
authorize the ISUEFA President, Dr. Delia G. Garcia, to attend the General
Assembly of the SUC Faculty Association Presidents to be held at Cebu Grand
Hotel, Cebu City on June 9-11, 1997.
“Herein
request of Dr. Delia Garcia for her attendance to said Assembly Meeting (sic)
was earlier forwarded to the ISU Management for approval. Unfortunately, her
travel was disapproved .
. . Therefore, all expenses incidental to said travel will be
shouldered by the ISU Faculty Association, Echague, Isabela. (P8620.00 plus
P500.00 for membership or affiliation fee to the National Federation).”
Accordingly,
despite the disapproval of her travel order and application for leave of absence
(forced leave), Garcia was able to attend the General Assembly of the State
Universities and Colleges Faculty Association Presidents held in Cebu City on
June 9-11, 1997.
On June 19, 1997, Garcia received a memorandum from then ISU President
Nayga, directing her to explain within 72 hours from receipt of the same why no
administrative “action” shall be
instituted against her for having been absent on June 9-11, 1997, without any
approved application for leave.
On August 5, 1997, the Commission received a complaint of Nayga against
Garcia for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross Insubordination, and
Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint,
however, was subsequently referred to the CSCRO No. II for investigation and
appropriate action.
After conducting a fact-finding investigation, the CSCRO No. II issued a
Formal Charge dated January 22, 1998, charging Garcia with Insubordination. Said
Formal Charge reads, in part, as follows:
“The
foregoing facts and circumstances indicate that Dr. Garcia defied the
disapproval of her travel order and her application for vacation leave. Thus,
there exists a prima facie evidence against her for a less grave offense of
Insubordination. However, there is no prima facie evidence against her for Gross
Neglect of Duty since she designated Professor Pacita L. Perez as the
Officer-In-Charge of the Social Science Department to oversee the faculty
members under her department.”
The formal investigation thereafter ensued, and on May 24, 2000, the
CSCRO No. II issued a decision finding Garcia guilty of Insubordination and
imposed upon her the penalty of fine equivalent to her one month salary. Garcia
moved for a reconsideration but the same was denied by the CSCRO No. II in a
decision dated September 12, 2000.
Hence, this appeal where the crucial issue to be resolved is whether
there is legal basis to find Garcia guilty of Insubordination warranting the
imposition upon her of the penalty of fine equivalent to her one (1) month
salary.
There is no dispute that at the inception of the present case, Garcia was
the President of the association of the faculty members of ISU-Echague, Isabela.
Said association was registered as the Isabela
State University-Echague
Faculty Association (ISUEFA)
with the primary objective of representing the faculty members in collective
negotiations beneficial to its members. As its President, Garcia was expected to
attend to the association’s (union’s) activities, such as meetings and the
like. Thus, when Garcia attended the General Assembly of SUC Faculty Association
Presidents held in Cebu City on June 9-11, 1997, upon the invitation of the
National Federation of Faculty Association in State Universities and Colleges (NFFASUC),
she was merely exercising her constitutional and statutory right to
self-organization. This is notwithstanding the fact that her travel order and
application for forced leave were disapproved by then ISU President Nayga.
As a general rule, approval of leave applications is addressed to the
sound discretion of the head of office who, in the present case, was Nayga. The
exercise of such discretion, however, should not be used as an instrument to
abridge or suppress a subordinate’s right to self-organization. The protection
accorded employees to exercise their right to self-organization is specifically
provided for in Section 40, Subtitle A,
Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, to wit:
“Sec.
40. Protection of the Right to Organize.—(1) Government employees shall not be
discriminated against in respect of their employment by reason of their
membership in employees’ organization or participation in the normal
activities of their organizations. Their employment shall not be subject to the
condition that they shall not join or shall relinquish their membership in the
employees’ organizations.
“(2)
Government authorities shall not interfere in the establishment, functioning or
administration of government employees’ organization through acts designed to
place such organization under the control of government authority.”
The right of a government employee to self-organization cannot simply be
ignored and disregarded. In the case of Pamantasan
ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. CSC, 241 SCRA 506, the Supreme Court recognized
the superiority of the right to self-organization of the faculty members whose
appointments were on temporary status over the discretion of the appointing
authority to renew or not to renew their respective expired appointments. In
said case, the appointing authority of PLM refused to renew the expired
temporary appointments of certain faculty members of PLM supposedly for various
reasons such as inefficiency and lack of appropriate qualifications. It was,
however, subsequently established that the real reason for the non-renewal of
their appointments was their being active and vocal members of
their union
which made
the management
uneasy and insecure. In ruling in favor of the faculty members, the High
Tribunal succinctly held:
“
. .
. The non-renewal of an employment contract with a term, it is
true, is ordinarily a valid mode of removal at the end of each period. This
rule, however, must
yield to
the superior constitutional
right of employees,
permanent or temporary, to self-organization. While, a temporary employment may
be ended with or without cause, it certainly may not, however, be terminated for
an illegal cause.”
Even on the most important aspect of renewal of expired appointments, the
superiority of the right to self-organization was upheld by no less than the
Highest Court of the land; what more in a situation involving a few days of
leave, as what is at issue in the present case?
Moreover, the Commission has noted that the disapproval of the travel
order and application for forced leave of Garcia was not for the best interest
of the service. As stated by then ISU President Nayga himself in his memorandum
dated June 13, 1997, classes in all ISU campuses shall start only on June 16,
1997, or several days after the termination of the General Assembly of SUC
Presidents in Cebu City. This being so, it is not difficult to perceive that
Garcia’s services are not yet of utmost necessity requiring her physical
presence at ISU-Echague campus on June 7-9, 1997.
Besides, there are ample pieces of evidence in the records to establish
that the disapproval of Garcia’s
travel order and application for forced leave was not based on the perception
that her absence would be prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Rather, Nayga disapproved Garcia’s travel order and application for forced
leave as an act of reprisal for the latter’s being instrumental, as President
of the ISUEFA, in the filing of several graft cases against the former with the
Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the President (Presidential Commission
Against Graft and Corruption). In the latter case, then President Joseph E.
Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 93 apparently dated November 29, 1999,
dismissing Nayga from the service after finding him guilty of violating Republic
Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Said Administrative Order reads, in part, as follows:
“The
antecedents relevant to this case show that in a resolution dated August 12,
1993, the Isabela State University Employees and Faculty Association (ISUEFA)
charged Nayga and several other officials/employees of ISU for graft and
corruption for entering into anomalous transactions.
. .
x
x x
“After
a review of the facts in the light of the evidence presented, this Office is
inclined to agree with the recommendation of the PCAGC. As it were, the public
bidding was supposed to be held for the protection of the ISU and to secure for
itself the best possible advantages by means of an open competition between
and/or among bidders. The aim of public bidding is basically to secure the
lowest price, to curtail favoritism in the award, to avoid suspicion or
anomalies and to foster fairness among the bidders. But, as disclosed, the facts
and circumstances surrounding the transactions in question betrayed
these ideals.
To that
extent, I
concur with the PCAGC’s conclusion. If there are meaningful words to
express the same, these are aptly said in pertinent portions of its report,
thus:
‘xxx it is ironic that the subject matter
of the complaint is termite extermination and soil poisoning. The dreaded
termites are those who prey on public funds and gobble them up. It is this
specie (sic) of termites that should be exterminated. As to soil poisoning, it
is the University grounds that should be scorched, not with chemicals, but with
torch of truth and justice so that the leaders that will emerge therefrom are
men and women who can impart to young minds the gift of learning and true
meaning of integrity.’
“WHEREFORE,
all the foregoing considered, and as recommended by the Presidential Commission
against (sic) Graft and Corruption, respondent Rodolfo C. Nayga is hereby found
guilty as charged and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of
benefits that may be due him, effective upon receipt of this order.”
It must also be stressed that no public funds were spent or wasted as a
consequence of the travel of Garcia to Cebu City as her travel expenses were
paid by the ISUEFA. But what is despicable in the instant case is the fact that
Nayga allowed and approved the travel, on official business, of several faculty
and staff members of ISU to Cebu City supposedly to attend the General Assembly
held on June 7-9, 1997, and that all their travel expenses were shouldered by
ISU funds. Specifically, these faculty and staff members are Mariano Balawag,
Fernando Ibarra, Purita Dychitan, Miguel Ramos, Andres Karganilla, Thelma Lanuza,
Marjorie Sunga, Estrella Mendoza, Olivia Karganilla, Matea Balauag, Flavia Nayga,
Perlita Babaran, and Avelino Manaay. Vouchers and other pieces of evidence
presented by Garcia clearly showed that Nayga allowed and approved the travel of
these persons despite the fact that they are not among those who are qualified
to attend said general assembly.
In fine, it is indubitable that then ISU President Nayga gravely
abused his discretion when he disapproved the travel order and application for
forced leave of Garcia. As such, Garcia cannot be faulted if she proceeded to
attend the General Assembly of SUC Faculty Association Presidents in Cebu City
despite the disapproval of her travel order and/or application for forced leave.
With all of the foregoing disquisition, the Commission finds no factual and
legal basis to find Garcia guilty of Insubordination.
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Delia
G. Garcia is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Decisions dated May 24, 2000, and September 13, 2000, of the
Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. II are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
Delia G. Garcia is EXONERATED of the charge of Insubordination. If Garcia was
made to pay a fine equivalent to her one (1) month salary, it is ordered that
she be restituted said amount.
Quezon City,
(Original
Signed)
J.
WALDEMAR V. VALMORES
Commissioner
(Original Signed)
KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID
Chairman
(Original Signed)
JOSE
F. ERESTAIN, JR.
Commissioner
Attested
by:
(Original
Signed)
REBECCA
A. FERNANDEZ
Director
IV
Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office
MVM/KPZ/Y9/w39
Garcia/vog
D
00-0516