NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, KKMK-NWSA, PAFLU & KKMK-NWSA, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA),
faced, in its own words, with “the legal quandary resulting from the two
separate proposals of both respondent unions, the KKMK-NWSA and the
KKMK-NWSA-PAFLU, to renegotiate the existing collective bargaining contract
that expired on July 1, 1970 and in NWSA’s desire to avert any industrial
crisis,” filed on May 29, 1970 with respondent Court a petition for
certification election to determine which of the two contending unions should
be the appropriate bargain­ing representative of the rank and file employees.^[1]
Enter­taining doubts as to whether respondent Court possessed juris­diction
over a public corporation exercising governmental functions, it included in its
prayer “the reservation that in the remote event [it is decided that NWSA
is] performing proprietary function, an Order be issued directing certification
election to determine which of the two contending unions is the proper
bargaining representative of the rank and file.”^[2]
Then came on June 10, 1970, a motion to dismiss from respondent union
KKMK-NWSA-PAFLU “alleging that the respondent court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the suit; the action is barred by prior judgment;
and the petition states no valid cause of action; and praying for the dismissal
of the petition for certi­fication election. 
* * * On or about July 18, 1970, the respon­dent KKMK-NWSA filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by KKMK-NWSA-PAFLU.  [It joined] the NWSA in the petition for
certification election.”^[3]
On August 19, 1970, the then Judge Arsenio Martinez of respondent Court
“dismissed the petition without prejudice on the ground that it was beyond
the jurisdiction or competence of this Court to entertain the petition for
certification election because of the alternative stand of petitioner that NWSA
is performing governmental function.”^[4]
Not satisfied, petitioner moved to reconsider, but on February 1, 1971,
respondent Court en banc issued a resolution affirming the order of
August 10, 1970.^[5]
Hence this petition for certiorari by way of review.  It was given due course and respondents were
required to answer.  Respondents,
however, failed to do so and petitioner, in a subsequent resolution of this Court,
was required to file its brief, which it did. 
Neither respondent union filed any brief.

No decision on the merits need be given.  The present Labor Code expressly abolished
respondent Court of Industrial Relations.^[6]
Accordingly, in DBP Employees Union-NATU v. Development Bank of the Philippines,^[7]
it was held: “The legal situation has radically changed since this case
was submitted for decision.  There is a
new Labor Code.  The Court of Indus­trial
Relations was therein abolished, a National Labor Relations Commission taking
its place.  What is more, there is no
mention of any executive certification of labor disputes to such an
agency.  Under the circumstances,
whatever decision that will be rendered by this Court would be characterized by
its rather academic character.  A ruling
on the merits appears unnecessary and inadvisable.  At most, it will be in the nature of an
advisory opinion.”^[8]
As to the principal question raised, mention may be made, however, of the fact
that in Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. CIR,^[9]
this Court ruled that notwithstanding the exercise of powers governmental in
nature rather than proprietary in character by government-owned corporations,
the now defunct Court of Industrial Relations still possessed juris­diction
over labor disputes.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for being moot and
academic.

Antonio, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Santos, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Barredo and Concepcion, Jr., on
leave.

^[1]
Petition, par. III, Statement of Facts and the Case and Annex A.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid,
par. V.

^[4] Ibid,
par. VIII, Annex G.

^[5] Ibid,
pars. IX and X and Annex J.

^[6]
Presidential Decree No. 442, Article 299 (1974).

^[7]
L-30961, January 29, 1975, 62 SCRA 160.

^[8] Ibid,
161-162.  Cf. E. Lim & Sons
Manufacturers, Inc. v. CIR, L-39117, September 25, 1975, 67 SCRA 124.

^[9]
L-32052, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 416.