OCA CIRCULAR NO. 152-2003, November 06, 2003
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 152-2003, November 06, 2003
therefore at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and act with
patriotism and justice. (Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.) The essence of public trust calls upon each government official to be true to his duty towards God and his country.
In answer to the call for all government officials to be
accountable for his acts are public officials, it has been the paramount
goal of this Office to ensure the effective delivery of judicial
service to the public without unnecessary disruptions.
By reason of the nature and functions of this office, the official
and employees of the Judiciary must serve as role models in the faithful
observance of the constitutional cannon that public office is a public
trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office
hours and the efficient use of office time for public service, if only
recompense the government and ultimately, the people, who shoulder the
cost of maintaining the Judiciary.
The Office of the Court Administrator has received information that
certain groups of court personnel are planning to resort to mass leaves,
walkouts, demonstrations and other similar activities to the detriment
of the delivery of service by the Judiciary to the general public.
While we are not prescribing the employee’s right the express
their respective sentiments concerning the issues now facing the
Judiciary, there are rules that government such expression of sentiments
of which all employees must be made aware of. All lower courts
employees are therefore hereby reminded of the following prevailing
laws, rules, and jurisprudence concerning unauthorized absences, mass
actions, and other related activities, to wit:
1) “Section 5. Definition of prohibited Concerted Mass action.—
As used in the Omnibus Rules, the phrase “prohibited concerted activity
or mass action” shall be understood to refer to any collective activity
undertaken by government employees, by themselves or through their
employees’ organizations, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or
service disruption in order to realize their demands of force
concessions, economic or otherwise, from their respective agencies or
the government. It shall include mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts
of similar nature.” (CSC Resolution No. 021316 dated October 11, 2002.)2) “Section 11. Prohibition on Mass Leaves. — No
government agency shall approve or warrant mass leave of absences, when
circumstances will substantially show that the purpose for which such
mass leave is taken is to enable the employees concerned to join,
participate or take part in a prohibited concerted activity or mass
action. Mass leave of absences shall occur when five (5) or more
employees of the same agency shall apply for leave simultaneously or
almost at the same time under circumstances evidencing conclusion or
common design to participate in a prohibited mass action.“When the mass leave is predicated on health reasons, the
approving authority shall inquire into the veracity of the leave of
absence and require the employees concerned to submit corresponding
medical certificates upon their resumption to duty. In case the mass
leave applied for is vacation leave;, the approving official must
satisfy himself or herself that the mass leave shall not be intended for
engaging in any prohibited concerted activity or mass action, before
taking any action thereon. In all instances, any misrepresentation on
the leave applications shall be a ground for initiating disciplinary
action against the concerned employees. (CSC Resolution No. 021316 dated
October 11, 2002.)3) Sec. 50, Rule XVI, Omnibus Rules on Leave of Absence,
provides that “an official or employee who is absent without approved
leave shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the
period of his unauthorized leave of absence.”4) Section 5 (5-1), Part 1 of Administrative Circular No. 5-2001 dated January 9, 2001 provides
that: “Those who incurred vacation leave of absence without pay for an
aggregate period of five (5) days or more during the preceding year”
shall not be entitled to receive the productivity incentive benefit.5) In the case of Bangalisan versus Court of Appeals (276 SCRA 619 [1987]),
the Court upheld the prohibition on mass leaves by ruling that: “While
the Constitution recognizes the right of government employees to
organize, they are prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass
leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in
temporary stoppage or disruption of public services.”6) In the case of Manila Public School Teachers Association, et. al. versus Laguio, Jr., (200 SCRA 323 [1991]),
the Court held that: “It is entirely possible that petitioners and
their members-teachers had and have some legitimate grievances. This
much may be conceded. Nonetheless,..what needs to be borne in mind,
trite though it may be, is that one wrong cannot be righted by another,
and that redress, for even the most ‘ justifiable complaints, should not
be sought through proscribed or illegal means. The belief in the
righteousness of their cause, no matter how deeply and fervently held,
gives the teachers concerned no “license 10 abandon their dunes, engage
in unlawful activity, defy constituted authority, and set a bad example
to their students.”7) “Section 7. Administrative Liability. —
Government employees who join, participate or take pan in any prohibited concerned activity or mass action as defined in the preceding section
shall be held administratively liable for the offense of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and such other
administrative offenses as may be warranted under the circumstances.“A registered and/or accredited employees’ organization which
initiates, spearheads, joins or participates in any prohibited concerned
activity or mass action, shall have its certificate of registration and,
or accreditation revoked or canceled.”“Section 8. Penal and Civil Liability. — The
filing of administrative charges against the erring employees shall not
be a bar to the institution of appropriate criminal and civil cases when
so warranted by the circumstances.” (CSC Resolution No. 021316 dated
October 11, 2002.)8) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service fall
under the classification of Grave Offenses under Rule IV of the Civil
Service Rules. The first offense is punishable with suspension
for six months and one day to one year while the second offense is
punishable with dismissal from the service.9) Finally, officials and employees who have been found guilty of
an administrative charge except those who have been reprimanded or
warned are not entitled to receive productivity incentive bonuses,
fringe benefits (amelioration assistance), additional COLA (JDF),
year-end bonus, cash gift, and the advance payment of one-half (1/2)
thereof. (Administrative Circular No. 5-2001 dated January 9, 2001 and DBM Budget circular No. 2000-18 dated September 6, 2000.)For your guidance and strict compliance.
November 6,2003.