327. Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor (1983)

5/20/2018 327. Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor (1983)

1/8

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-60403 August 3, 1983

ALLIANCE OF GOERNMENT !OR"ERS #AG!$% PN&-FEMA &AN" EMPLO'EESASSOCIATION #AG!$% "AISA(AN AT "APATIRAN NG MGA MANGAGA!A AT"A!ANI NG M!SS #AG!$% &ALARA EMPLO'EES ASSOCIATION #AG!$% GSIS!OR"ERS ASSOCIATION #AG!$% SSS EMPLO'EES ASSOCIATION #AG!$% PTAEMPLO'EES ASSOCIATION #AG!$% NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEAC(ERS AN)OFFICE !OR"ERS #AG!$% , petitioners,vs.T(E (ONORA&LE MINISTER OF LA&OR *+ EMPLO'MENT, P(ILIPPINENATIONAL &AN" #PN&$% METROPOLITAN !ATER!OR"S *+ SE!ERAGES'STEM #M!SS$% GOERNMENT SERICE INSURANCE S'STEM #GSIS$% SOCIAL

SECURIT' S'STEM #SSS$% P(ILIPPINE IRGINIA TO&ACCO A)MINISTRATION#PTA$ P(ILIPPINE NORMAL COLLEGE #PNC$% POL'TEC(NIC UNIERSIT' OFT(E P(ILIPPINES #PUP$, respondents.

The Solicitor General for MOLE, PNB, SSS, PNC and PUP.

Oliver Gesmundo for etitioners.

!esus C. Gentiles for etitioner SSSE"#"G$.

GUTIERRE, R., J.:

Are the branches, agencies, subdivisions, and instrumentalities of the Government,including government oned or controlled corporations included among the !"emplo#ers"" under Presidential $ecree No. %&' hich are re(uired to pa# an theiremplo#ees receiving a basic salar# of not more than P',))).)) a month, a thirteenth*'+th month pa# not later than $ecember -! of ever# #ear

Petitioner Alliance of Government /or0ers *AG/ is a registered labor federation hilethe other petitioners are its affiliate unions ith members from among the emplo#ees ofthe folloing offices, schools, or government oned or controlled corporations1

'. Philippine National Ban0 *PNB Escolta 2treet, Manila

-. Metropolitan /ateror0s and 2eerage 2#stem *M/223atipunan Road, Balara, 4ue5on Cit#

+. Government 2ervice 6nsurance 2#stem *G262 Arroceros 2treet,Manila

!. 2ocial 2ecurit# 2#stem *222 East Avenue, 4ue5on Cit#

&. Philippine 7irginia 8obacco Administration *P78A ConsolacionBuilding, Cubao, 4ue5on Cit#

9. Philippine Normal College *PNC A#ala Boulevard, Manila

:. Pol#technic ;niversit# of the Philippines *P;P ebruar# -%, '?%+, the Philippine Government Emplo#ees Association *PGEA fileda motion to come in as an additional petitioner.

Presidential $ecree No. %&' provides in its entiret#1

/


2/8

2EC86=N -. Emplo#ers alread# pa#ing their emplo#ees a '+th@monthpa# or its e(uivalent are not covered b# this $ecree.

2EC86=N +. 8his $ecree shall ta0e effect immediatel#. $one in theCit# of Manila, this '9th da# of $ecember '?:&.

According to the petitioners, P.$. No. %&' re(uires all emlo%ersto pa# the '+th@monthpa# to their emplo#ees ith one sole eception found in 2ection - hich states that"*Emplo#ers alread# pa#ing their emplo#ees a '+th month pa# or its e(uivalent are notcovered b# this $ecree. " 8he petitioners contend that 2ection + of the Rules andRegulations 6mplementing Presidential $ecree No. %&' included other t#pes ofemplo#ers not eempted b# the decree. 8he# state that nohere in the decree is thesecretar#, no Minister of Dabor and Emplo#ment, authori5ed to eempt other t#pes ofemplo#ers from the re(uirement.

2ection + of the Rules and Regulations 6mplementing Presidential $ecree No. %&'provides1

2ection +. Emplo#ers covered 8he $ecree shall appl# to allemplo#ers ecept to1

a $istressed emplo#ers, such as *' those hich are currentl#incurring substantial losses or ''- in the case of non@profitinstitutions and organi5ations, here their income, hether fromdonations, contributions, grants and other earnings from an# source,has consistentl# declined b# more than fort# *!)F per cent of theirnormal income for the last to *- #ears, subect to the provision of2ection : of this issuance.

b 8he Government and an# of its political subdivisions, includinggovernment@oned and controlled corporations, eceptt those

corporation, operating essentiall# as private, ,subsidiaries of thegovernment

c Emplo#ers alread# pa#ing their emplo#ees '+th@month pa# or morein a calendar #ear or its e(uivalent at the of this issuance

d Emplo#ers of household helpers and persons in the personalservice of another in relation to such or0ers1 and

e Emplo#ers of those ho are paid on purel# commission, boundar#,or tas0 basis and those ho are paid a fied for performing a specific

or0, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof,ecept here the or0ers are paid an piece@ rate basis in hich casethe emplo#er shall be covered b# this issuance 1insofar ab suchor0ers are concerned ...

8he petitioners assail this rule as ultra vires and void. Citin& Philiine "arel$or'ers(Union v. N)*C et al., *')9 2CRA !!! Teo+on v. Memers of the Board of("dministators*++ 2CRA &%& Santos u. -on. Esteno et al., *')? Phil. !'? -ilado u.Collector of )nternal *evenue*')) Phil. -%%, and Olsen / Co. )nc. v. "ldanese andTrinidad*!+ Phil. -&?, the petitioners argue that regulations adopted under legislativeauthorit# must be in harmon# ith the provisions of the la and for the sole purpose ofcarr#ing into effect its general provisions. 8he# state that a legislative act cannot beamended b# a rule and an administrative officer cannot change the la. 2ection + ischallenged as a substantial modification b# rule of a Presidential $ecree and anunlaful eercise of legislative poer.

=ur initial reaction as to den# due course to the petition in a minute resolution,hoever, considering the important issues propounded and the fact, that constitutionalprinciples are involved, e have no decided to give due course to the petition, toconsider the various comments as ansers and to resolve the (uestions raised througha full length decision in the eercise of this CourtHs s#mbolic function as an aspect of thepoer of udicial revie.

At the outset, the petitioners are faced ith a procedural barrier. 8he petition is one fordeclarator# relief, an action not embraced ithin the original urisdiction of the 2upremeCourt. **emoti&ue v. Osmena,, !r., -' 2CRA %+: *ural Ban' of Olon&ao v.Commission of Land *e&istration,')- 2CRA :?! 0e la Llana v. "la,''- 2CRA -?!.8here is no statutor# or urisprudential basis for the petitionersH statement that the2upreme Court has original and eclusive urisdiction over declarator# relief suits hereonl# (uestions of la are involved. Iurisdiction is conferred b# la. 8he petitioners havenot pointed to an# provision of the Constitution or statute hich sustains their seepingassertion. =n this ground alone, the petition could have been dismissed outright.

>olloing similar action ta0en in Nacionalista Part% v. "n&elo Bautista*%& Phil. ')' and"1uino v. Commission on Elections*9- 2CRA -:& e have, hoever, decided to treatthe petition as one for mandamus. 8he petition has far reaching implications and raises(uestions that should be resolved.


3/8

/


4/8

treatment presents in the handling of concerted activities, collective bargaining, andstri0es b# government emplo#ees to rest concessions in compensation, fringebenefits, hiring and firing, and other terms and conditions of emplo#ment.

8he or0ers in the respondent institutions have not directl# petitioned the heads of theirrespective offices nor their representatives in the Batasang Pambansa. 8he# haveacted through a labor federation and its affiliated unions. 6n other ords, the or0ersand emplo#ees of these state firms, college, and universit# are ta0ing collective actionthrough a labor federation hich uses the bargaining poer of organi5ed labor to secureincreased compensation for its members.

;nder the present state of the la and pursuant to the epress language of theConstitution, this resort to concerted activit# ith the ever present threat of a stri0e canno longer be alloed.

8he general rule in the past and up to the present is that "the terms and conditions ofemplo#ment in the Government, including an# political subdivision or instrumentalit#thereof are governed b# la" *2ection '', the 6ndustrial Peace Act, R.A. No. %:&, as

amended and Article -::, the Dabor Code, P.$. No. !!-, as amended. 2ince the termsand conditions of government emplo#ment are fi+ed % la2, government or0ers cannotuse the same eapons emplo#ed b# or0ers in the private sector to secureconcessions from their emplo#ers. 8he principle behind labor unionism in privateindustr# is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion b# la.Relations beteen private emplo#ers and their emplo#ees rest on an essentiall#voluntar# basis. 2ubect to the minimum re(uirements of age las and other labor andelfare legislation, the terms and conditions of emplo#ment in the unioni5ed privatesector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. 6n governmentemplo#ment, hoever, it is the legislature and, here properl# given delegated poer,the administrative heads of government hich fi the terms and conditions ofemplo#ment. And this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, andregulations, not through collective bargaining agreements.

At the same time, the old 6ndustrial Peace Act ecepted emplo#ees and or0ers inproprietar# functions of government from the above compulsion of la. 8hus, in thepast, government emplo#ees performing proprietar# functions could belong to labororgani5ations imposing the obligation to oin in stri0es or engage in other concertedaction. *2ection '', R.A. %:&, as amended. 8he# could and the# did engage inconcerted activities and various stri0es against government oned and controlledcorporations and other government institutions discharging proprietar# functions. Amongthe institutions as falling under the eception in 2ection '' of the 6ndustrial Peace Actere respondents Government 2ervice 6nsurance 2#stem *G262EA v. Alvendia, ')%Phil. &)& and 2ocial 2ecurit# 2#stem *222EA v. 2oriano, : 2CRA ')'9. And thisCourt has supported labor completel# in the various stri0es and concerted activities in

firms and agencies discharging proprietar# functions because the Constitution and thelas alloed these activities.

8he eception, hoever belongs to the past.

8he petitioners state in their counter comment filed Iul# -+, '?%- that the '?:+Constitution is categorical about the grant of the rights to self@ organi5ation andcollective bargaining to all 2or'ers and that no amount of stretched interpretation oflesser las li0e the Dabor Code and the Civil 2ervice Act can overturn the clearmessage of the Constitution ith respect to these rights to self@organi5ation andcollective bargaining.

8hese statements of the petitioners are error insofar as government or0ers are noconcerned.

;nder the present Constitution, govemment@oned or controlled corporations arespecificall# mentioned as embraced b# the civil service. *2ection ', Article J66@B,Constitution. 8he inclusion of the clause "including ever# government oned or

controlled corporation" in the '?:+ amendments to the Constitution as a deliberateamendment for an epress purpose. 8here ma# be those ho disagree ith the intentof the framers of the amendment but because it is fundamental la, e are all bound b#it. 8he amendment as intended to correct the situation here more favored emplo#eesof the government could eno# the benefits of to orlds. 8he# ere protected b# thelas governing government emplo#ment. 8he# could also engage in collectivebargaining and oin in stri0es to secure higher ages and fringe benefits hich e(uall#hardor0ing emplo#ees engaged in government functions could onl# env# but noteno#.

Presidential $ecree No. %):, the Civil 2ervice $ecree of the Philippines hasimplemented the '?:+ Constitutional amendment. 6t is categorical about the inclusion ofpersonnel of government@oned or controlled corporations in the civil service and their

being subect to civil service re(uirements1

2EC86=N &9. Government# o2ned or Controlled CororationsPersonnel.All permanent personnel of government@ oned orcontrolled corporations hose positions are no embraced in the civilservice shall continue in the service until the# have been given achance to (ualif# in an appropriate eamination, but in the meantime,those ho do not possess the appropriate civil service eligibilit# shallnot be promoted until the# (ualif# in an appropriate civil serviceeamination. 2ervices of temporar# personnel ma be # terminatedan# time.

4


5/8

Personnel of government@oned or controlled corporations are no part of the civilservice. 6t ould not be fair to allo them to engage in concerted activities to ringhigher salaries or fringe benefits from Government even as other civil service personnelsuch as the hundreds of thousands of public school teachers, soldiers, policemen,health personnel, and other government or0ers are denied the right to engage insimilar activities.

8o sa# that the ords "all emplo#ers" in P.$. No. %&' includes the Government and allits agencies, instrumentalities, and government@oned or controlled corporations ouldalso result in nightmarish budgetar# problems.

>or instance, the 2upreme Court is tr#ing its best to alleviate the financial difficulties ofcourts, udges, and court personnel in the entire countr# but it can do so onl# ithin thelimits of budgetar# appropriations. Public school teachers have been resorting to hatas formerl# unthin0able, to mass leaves and demonstrations, to get not a '+th@monthpa# but promised increases in basic salaries and small alloances for school uniforms.8he budget of the Ministr# of Education, Culture and 2ports has to be supplementedever# no and then for this purpose. 8he point is, salaries and fringe benefits of thoseembraced b# the civil service are fied b# la. An# increases must come from la, from

appropriations or savings under the la, and not from concerted activit#.

8he Government Corporate Counsel, Iustice Manuel Da5aro, in his consolidatedcomment K for respondents G262, M/22, and P78A gives the bac0ground of theamendment hich includes ever% government@oned or controlled corporation in theembrace of the civil service1

Records of the '?:' Constitutional Convention sho that in thedeliberations held relative to hat is no 2ection '*' Article J66@B,surathe issue of the inclusion of government@oned or controlledcorporations figured prominentl#.

8he late delegate Roberto 2. =ca, a recogni5ed labor leader,vehementl# obected to the inclusion of government@oned orcontrolled corporations in the Civil 2ervice.


6/8

2imilarl#, $elegate Deandro P. Garcia, epressing support for theinclusion of government@oned or controlled corporations in the Civil2ervice, argued1

6t is meretricious to contend that becauseGovermnent oned or controlled corporations #ieldprofits, their emplo#ees are entitled to better agesand fringe benefits than emplo#ees of Governmentother than Government@ oned and controlled cororations hich are not ma0ing profits. 8here is nogainsa#ing the fact that the capital the# use is thepeopleHs *see Records of the '?:' ConstitutionalConvention.

2ummari5ing the deliberations of the '?:' Constitutional Conventionon the inclusion of Government oned or controlled corporations,$ean Ioa(uin G. Bernas, 2I., of the Ateneo de Manila ;niversit#Professional 2chool of Da, stated that government@onedcorporations came under attac0 as mil0ing cos of a privileged fe

eno#ing salaries far higher than their counterparts in the variousbranches of government, hile the capital of these corporationsbelongs to the Government and government mone# is pumped intothem henever on the brin0 of disaster, and the# should thereforecome under the stric0 surveillance of the Civil 2ervice 2#stem.*Bernas, 8he '?:+ Philippine Constitution, Notes and Cases, '?:!ed., p. &-!.

8he Government Corporate Counsel cites the precedent setting decision in Agricultural@Credit and Cooperative >inancing Administration *"CC3" v. Confederation of Unions inGovernment Cororations and Offtces CUGCO et al.,+) 2CRA 9!45as giving therationale for coverage of government@oned or controlled corporations b# the civilservice. /e stated"CC3" v. CUGCOthat1

... 8he ACA is a government office or agenc# engaged ingovernmental, not proprietar# functions. 8hese functions ma# not bestrictl# hat President /ilson described as "constituent" *asdistinguished from HministrantH, LBacani vs. National CoconutCorporation, G.R. No. D@?9&:, Nov. -?,'?&9, &+ =.G. p. -%)) suchas those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention ofcrime, those regulating propert# and propert# rights, those relating tothe administration of ustice and the determination of political duties ofciti5ens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations.;nder this traditional classification, such constituent functions are

eercised b# the 2tate as attributes of sovereignt#, and not merel# topromote the elfare, progress and prosperit# of the people theselatter functions being ministrant, the eercise of hich is optional onthe part of the government.

8he groing compleities of modern societ#, hoever, have renderedthis traditional classification of the functions of government (uiteunrealistic, not to sa# obsolete. 8he areas hich used to be left toprivate enterprise and initiative and hich the government as calledupon to enter optionall#, and onl# "because it as better e(uipped toadminister for the public elfare than is an# private individual or groupof individuals," *Malcolm, 8he Government of the Philippines, pp. '?@-) Bacani vs. National Coconut Corporation, supra continue to losetheir ell@ defined boundaries and to be absorbed ithin activities thatthe government must underta0e in its sovereign capacit# if it is tomeet the increasing social challenges of the times.


7/8

encroached upon. /ith our eplicit disavoal of the Hconstituent@ministrantH test, the ghost of the laisse5@faire concept no longer stal0sthe uridical stage."

=ur dismissal of this petitin should not, b# an# means, be interpreted to impl# thator0ers in government@oned and controlled corporations or in state colleges anduniversities ma# not eno# freedom of association. 8he or0ers hom the petitionerspurport to represent have the right, hich ma# not be abridged, to form associations orsocieties for purposes not contrar# to la. *Constitution, Article 67, 2ection :. 8his is aright hich share ith all public officers and emplo#ees and, in fact, b# ever#bod# livingin this countr#. But the# ma# not oin associations hich impose the obligation toengage in concerted activities in order to get salaries, fringe benefits, and otheremoluments higher than or different fr m that provided b# la and regulation.

8he ver# Dabor Code, P.$. No. !!- as amended,, hich governs the registration andprovides for the rights of legitimate labor organi5ations states1

AR8. -::.Government emlo%ees. 8he terms and conditions of

emplo#ment of all government emplo#ees, including emplo#ees ofgovernment@oned and controlled corporations, shall be governed b#the Civil 2ervice Da, rules and regulations. 8heir salaries shall bestandardi5ed b# the National Assembl# as provided for in the neconstitution.


8/8

/=RE, the petition is hereb# $62M622E$ for lac0 of merit.

2= =R$ERE$.

8

Documents

327. Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor (1983)