Not even suspension for SSS strike execs

What a twist! Social Security System high executives who led a strike in 2001 won’t even be punished with mere one-month suspension after all. The SSS board of trustees changed its mind and sneaked last week an even lighter penalty: a fine of one month’s salary – payable in three installments at that.

How such a verdict would sit with 23 million SSS members has yet to be seen. Weeks of work slowdown, culminating in a strike on Aug. 1 and 2, 2001, disrupted services due them. The trustees who oversee the fund in fact admitted as much in their findings on the case for grave misconduct and gross neglect – acts punishable by dismissal. At the SSS main office in Quezon City alone "there was zero transaction on Aug. 1 and only 19,187 transactions on Aug. 2, which is much less than the usual 40,000 to 55,000 daily transactions." Thousands more members and pensioners who direly needed to draw loans and stipends were turned away by strikers at other branches nationwide. For all that, eight of nine trustees deemed executive vice president Horacio Templo and senior VP Marla Laurel, the SSS No. 2 and 3 executives, guilty of simple neglect of duty. Ten union officers were judged at fault for simple misconduct, and will also forfeit a month’s pay. Ten other high executives who closed their offices to join the strike were absolved.

Many other serious findings in the 29-page decision contradicted the light penalty. These lend credence to talk in the SSS that Templo, who faces separate charges of wasting P15.6 billion in a behest investment of Joseph Estrada, holds strange influence over the trustees. Likewise, to murmurs that the union officers got off leniently in exchange for not pressing for salary increases in the recently concluded collective bargaining for 2003.

The trustees reiterated from the start the Civil Service Commission’s Circular No. 6 and Executive Order 180, to wit: "Any form of mass action disruptive of service to the public is illegal." They also cited the Supreme Court’s "definite pronouncement that ‘in the absence of any legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of that right, they are prohibited from striking.’"

From there the trustees noted: "[The respondents] staged a strike and mass action which paralyzed vital SSS services nationwide on those dates to thousands of members... [G]overnment property, eg., the SSS compound and buildings, tents and benches were also used in the strike."

The trustees went on: "There is no denying that disruption of service occurred ... SSS operations in the main office were paralyzed for one-and-a-half days ... [T]he action undoubtedly resulted in interruption of services to the public."

Yet in the end, the trustees concluded that the illegal acts constitute simple neglect and misconduct.

The 4,000-strong Philippine Association of Retired Persons had filed the suit with the Ombudsman in Jan. 2002, months after the strike, because the trustees hesitated from the start. Two weeks later on Feb. 18, however, the trustees suddenly took interest and asked the Ombudsman to let them hear it instead. It apparently was for political and personal expediencies. Estrada loyalists had assaulted Malacañang only months before. To ease the SSS strike, President Gloria Arroyo replaced chief Vitaliano Nañagas, who had earned the ire of employees for his strict rules on public service, and the executives for his quiet investigation of the fund misuse. The new president, Corazon dela Paz, wanted peace at any cost with the unruly executives and employees. She thus appointed ex-officio trustee Labor Sec. Pat Sto. Tomas, with trustees Efren Aranzamendez of the labor sector and Donald Dee of the business sector, to conduct an inquiry.

Sto. Tomas, when she was Civil Service Commissioner years ago, had fired a group of school teachers for striking over delayed payments of measly wages. The Supreme Court upheld her. At the SSS, however, she saw little wrong in executives and employees banding together in strike for the queer reason of not liking their boss.

When the trustees first took over the case, PARP sought to simplify and consolidate its charge by adding the line, "in conspiracy with one another and in confederation with...." The panel rejected it.

In their ruling, however, the trustees "found it hard to believe that the acts of the rank-and-file employees were completely spontaneous... It cannot be denied that the employees were not in their respective work areas... The officers of the union shall assume responsibility... could not escape culpability... would have to be answerable."

Same with Templo and his fellow-executives, who even attended the union’s press conference at the height of the strike. Templo declared before news cameras: "We have to show that we are not supporting him; therefore the offices are closed... Here in Quezon City where Nañagas holds office, the office is closed to the public."

Thus, the trustees ruled that Templo "miserably failed to discharge his duty to ensure that operations of the system would not be hampered." About Laurel, they noted: "Witnesses’ statements abound to show that she was more than just a mere spectator ... or passive bystander." Thus, they said the two "should be sanctioned for failure to discharge their duties."

But the trustees quickly came up with a list of "acts of goodwill to mitigate the offenses." Among these acts were that the strikers not only returned to work when Nañagas was replaced, but also did overtime to make up for backlogs. Still, one wonders why such acts can be considered goodwill after the respondents plotted and orchestrated the strike well in advance.

And so Templo, who gets P350,000 a month in salary and perks, will not have to leave his desk. He will just "suffer" a fine of P290,000 in basic pay – divided by three installments – but keep the huge allowances since he will still be working.

Working on what? A similar light penalty, perhaps, for that P15.6-billion waste in the 2000 buyout of PCIBank by Equitable Bank.

There’s an interesting story in that, too.

* * *

You can e-mail comments to: [email protected]