60 The Board of Trustees of the GSIS v Velasco o Non-registration of the assailed resolutions made them non-effective as
Publication and Effectivity | 2 Feb 2011 | Carpio, J. RAC Book 7, Ch. 2, Sections 3 and 4 requires registration with the ONAR.
Nature of Case: Petition for Review
Digest maker: ALIP, Alexyss
SUMMARY:
Molina and Velasco were administratively charged by the Board of Trustees of the
GSIS (BoT) and were placed on preventive suspension. The BoT issued a resolution that
disqualified GSIS employees who are serving preventive suspension from enjoying benefits
such as the step increment and promotion. The resolution was assailed for violating their
constitutional rights and for not having been registered with the ONAR and was thus
without effect. While the SC ruled in favour of Molina and Velasco, it held that resolutions
such as the one assailed need not be registered with the ONAR.
DOCTRINE:
Only those rules of general or of permanent character affecting the public are to be
filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR)
FACTS:
 23 May 2002 – The BoT charged Albert Velasco and Mario Molina administratively
with grave misconduct for their alleged participation in the demonstration held by
GSIS employees denouncing the alleged corruption in the GSIS and calling for the
ouster of its president, Winston Garcia.
 Velasco and Molina were both placed under preventive suspension for 90 days
 4 Apr 2003 – Molina sent a letter to the GSIS Senior VP Madarang for the
implementation of his step increment.
 22 Apr 2003 – Molina's request was denied on the basis of Resolution No. 372 issued
by the BoT, which approved the new GSIS salary structure. The Resolution provided
that:
o 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
 Velasco and Molina likewise asked that they be allowed to avail of employee
privileges under Resolution No. 306, which approved Christmas raffle benefits for all
GSIS employees effective 2002. The same was denied due to their pending case.
 27 Aug 2003 – BoT issued Resolution No. 197 which approved the following:
o To adopt the policy that an employee with pending administrative case
shall be disqualified from promotion, step increment, performance-based
bonus and other benefits and privileges during the pendency of their
administrative case
 14 Nov 2003 – Velasco and Molina filed with the TC a petition for prohibition with
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging the following:
o They were denied benefits which GSIS employees were entitled under
Resolution No. 306
o The denial violates their right to be presumed innocent and that they were
being punished without hearing
o Molina has already earned his right to step increment prior to Reso No. 372
o The 3 resolutions (Reso Nos.197, 372 and 306) were ineffective as they
were not registered with the UP Law Center pursuant to Revised Admin.
Code (RAC) of 1987
 24 Sep 2004 – The TC granted the petition and declared Reso Nos. 197 and 372 null
and void on the following grounds:
o To deny Velasco and Molina their benefits would be unjustified, violative of
their right to be presumed innocent and would inflict punishment without
hearing
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON internal rules and regulations require publication with the ONAR for their
effectivity-NO
a. 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.
b. The assailed resolutions are merely internal in nature—regulating only
the personnel of the GSIS and not the public.
b.i. Resolution No. 372: GSIS salary structure
b.ii. Resolution No. 306: Authority to pay Christmas Package
b.iii. Resolution No. 197: Merit selection and promotion plan
2. WON jurisdiction over the subject matter lies with the RTC of Manila -YES
a. Petition filed is one for prohibition and is therefore within the jurisdiction
of the RTC of Manila based on Rule 65, Sections 2 and 4 and BP 129 Sec. 21.
Furthermore, it is also within its territorial jurisdiction based on SC Adm.
Order 3.
b. The petition is a personal action and thus venue maybe the plaintiff's
residence, in this case, in Manila.
3. WON Velasco and Molina are entitled to step increment-YES
a. The suspension is merely preventive and was not meant to serve as a
penalty. Upon the termination of the 90-day suspension, both should have
been reinstated.
b. The gap in their continuous service caused by such suspension merely
delays the step increment. It does not reset the count of the requisite 3 years
of continuous service to be entitled to the step increment.
c. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be meted out
the punishment of having their step increments revoked when the
administrative case filed against them has not reached its conclusion.
RULING: Petition DENIED. Trial court's decisions is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS
insofar as such resolutions need not be registered with the ONAR as a requisite for their
effecitvity.
Related provisions
SEC. 3. Filing.—(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center
three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of
this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the
basis of any sanction against any party of persons. (2) The records officer of the agency, or his
equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of
disciplinary action. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and
shall be open to the public inspection.
SEC. 4. Effectivity.—In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not
inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of
filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases
of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be
expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures
to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them.