FACTS:

Winston Garcia, the President and General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), filed a Petition for Review seeking to reverse the dismissal of the GSIS' petition for certiorari against the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) Resolution No. 062177. The GSIS had filed formal charges against respondents for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The charges were based on the respondents' participation in a mass demonstration or rally outside the GSIS Investigation Unit's office. During the rally, the respondents wore red shirts, voiced their support for two individuals, and disrupted work during office hours. The respondents claimed that their actions were in support of their union officers and an exercise of their freedom of expression. The GSIS found the respondents guilty and imposed a one-year suspension, but the CSC reduced the penalty to a reprimand, stating that the respondents' actions did not constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. PGM Garcia sought reconsideration, but it was denied. PGM Garcia then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the CSC's decision. Dissatisfied, PGM Garcia filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, which found no merit in the petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the failure of the respondents to file their answers to the formal charges should result in the allegations being deemed admitted.

2. Whether the provisions of Rule 8, Section 11 of the Rules of Court apply in this case.

3. Whether there was a violation of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316.

4. Whether the act of the respondents in going to the GSIS-IU office wearing red shirts to witness a public hearing constitutes concerted activity or mass action as defined in CSC Resolution No. 02-1316.

5. Whether the act of the respondents qualifies as an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

6. Whether or not respondent's actuations constituted a prohibited concerted activity or mass action.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled against the petitioners, finding no merit in their arguments.

2. The Court held that the failure of the respondents to file their answers does not automatically mean that the allegations in the formal charges should be deemed admitted. The burden of proving the charges still lies with the complainant/petitioners.

3. The Court determined that even if Rule 8, Section 11 of the Rules of Court were to apply in this case, it does not change the fact that the GSIS rules explicitly state that the failure to file an answer results in a waiver of the right to file an answer, not an admission of the charges.

4. The Court focused on whether there was a violation of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316, specifically whether the actions of the respondents constituted a "prohibited concerted activity or mass action." The Court did not find any violation based on the weakness of the petitioners' evidence.

5. The act of the respondents in going to the GSIS-IU office wearing red shirts to witness a public hearing does not constitute concerted activity or mass action as defined in CSC Resolution No. 02-1316. The actuations of the respondents, such as wearing similarly colored shirts, attending a public hearing, and bringing recording gadgets, do not demonstrate an intent to effect work stoppage or service disruption or a purpose of realizing their demands of force concession.

6. The act of the respondents can be deemed an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. Civil Service does not deprive government workers of their freedom of expression, and such freedom can be reasonably regulated but can never be taken away.

7. The actuations of the respondents did not amount to a prohibited concerted activity or mass action. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the respondents' exercise of their rights to freedom of speech and expression remained intact. The Court also acknowledged that the CSC's resolution defining what constitutes a prohibited concerted activity or mass action only regulated these rights. Therefore, the CSC and the Court of Appeals were correct in their conclusion.

PRINCIPLES:

• Failure to file an answer in an administrative case does not automatically result in the admission of the allegations. The burden of proving the charges still lies with the complainant.

• The provisions of the Rules of Court can be applied in a suppletory character only when there is a deficiency in the applicable rule.

• Even if certain allegations are deemed admitted, immaterial allegations and incorrect conclusions drawn from facts set out in the complaint are not automatically considered true and correct.

• In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant/petitioner to prove the allegations with substantial evidence.

• Not all collective activity or mass undertaking of government employees is prohibited. Only concerted activity or mass action with an intent to effect work stoppage or service disruption and for the purpose of realizing demands of force concession is prohibited.

• Government workers have the right to voice out their protests against what they believe is a violation of their rights and interests. Civil Service does not deprive them of their freedom of expression.

• The government's right as an employer to lay down certain standards of conduct is recognized, but its restrictions must be reasonable and not unconstitutionally overbroad.

• The wearing of badges or buttons promoting opposition to a collective bargaining agreement or showing support for a union during a union organization drive is considered speech on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.

• The rights to freedom of speech and expression are protected and should remain intact.

• The regulation of the exercise of these rights must be reasonable and measured.

• The definition of prohibited concerted activity or mass action should be in line with the Constitution and other applicable laws.