DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES LABOR UNION, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON AND THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

Department of Public Services Labor Union versus Court of Industrial Relations

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Department of Public Services Labor Union against the Court of Industrial Relations, the Mayor of the City of Manila, and the Municipal Board of the City of Manila. The union sought to enforce Republic Act 1880, which amended section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code by fixing the legal number of hours of labor in every branch of the Government service, and in government-owned and controlled corporations, at eight hours a day for five days a week, or a total of forty hours a week, except in certain cases. The union also prayed for the recovery of overtime compensation. The case matters because it draws the line between governmental and proprietary functions of a municipality, and because it teaches when the eight-hour labor law applies and when it does not.

Procedural History

The union filed its petition with the Court of Industrial Relations. Instead of answering, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds: that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and that the petition stated no cause of action. The union opposed the motion. After hearing, the trial Judge sustained the motion and issued an order dismissing the petition. The union sought reconsideration, which was denied by the court en banc. The union then filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Facts

The petitioning union is composed of employees and laborers of the Department of Public Services of the City of Manila. Under section 80 of the city's Revised Charter, Republic Act 409 as amended, that department is charged with the care, custody, and cleaning of all public buildings, including markets and slaughterhouses and buildings rented for city purposes, with public toilets, and with the collection and disposal of garbage, refuse, contents of toilets and cesspools, and all other offensive and dangerous substances within the city.

Republic Act 1880 amended section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code to fix the legal number of hours of labor at eight hours a day for five days a week, or forty hours a week, except for schools, courts, hospitals, and health clinics, or where the exigencies of the service so require. The law was implemented by Executive Order 251, promulgated by the President in June 1957, which provided that when the interest of the public service so requires, the head of any department, bureau, or office may extend the daily hours of labor and may require overtime work not only on work days but also on holidays.

The members of the union were required to work seven days a week, as before the enactment of Republic Act 1880. The union came to court to compel the reduction of their working days to five a week and to recover overtime pay.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the petition, considering that the City of Manila, through its Department of Public Services, performs governmental rather than proprietary functions.
• Whether or not the petition states a cause of action for the reduction of the working days of the union members to five days a week under Republic Act 1880.
• Whether or not the members of the union are entitled to overtime compensation for work required beyond the prescribed number of days and hours.

Applicable Provisions

Section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act 1880, provides:

The legal number of hours in every branch of the Government service as well as in government-owned and controlled corporations shall be 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or a total of 40 hours a week, except those for schools, courts, hospitals and health clinics or where the exigencies of the service so require.

This is the very law the union seeks to enforce, and its exception for exigencies of the service is the provision on which the case turns.

Section 259 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

SEC. 259. Inhibition against payment of extra compensation.— In the absence of special provision, persons regularly and permanently appointed under the Civil Service Law or whose salary, wages, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulation shall not, for any service rendered or labor done by them on holidays or for other overtime work, receive or be paid any additional compensation; nor, in the absence of special provision, shall any officer or employee in any branch of the Government Service receive additional compensation on account of the discharge of duties pertaining to the position of another or for the performance of any public service whatever, whether such service is rendered voluntary or is exacted of him under authority.

This provision governs the union's claim for overtime pay, and the Court holds that Republic Act 1880 did not amend or modify it in any way.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction. From the nature of the duties imposed upon and performed by the Department of Public Services, the City of Manila is not functioning in its proprietary or private capacity, but in its governmental or public character. The Court adopted the rule that the collection and disposal of garbage and acting in conserving the public health is governmental, wherein the municipality acts for the state. In collecting and disposing of garbage, the City obtains no special corporate benefit or pecuniary profit, but acts in the interest of health, safety, and the advancement of the public good. The settled rule is that in the performance of its governmental functions, a municipal corporation acts as an agent of the State and is immune from suit unless consent thereto has been given, and such consent must be expressed in unequivocal language. No consent of the Government was shown.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition states no cause of action. Nothing in the law or in the implementing order imposes upon the respondent Mayor or the Municipal Board the duty to apply the benefit of the law to all employees and laborers of the city government. On the contrary, the law gives the Mayor ample authority and discretion to extend the work schedule beyond the prescribed number of days and hours. If the union members were required to work seven days a week, it must be because their work is demanded by the exigencies of the service. The Court reasoned that if their work days were reduced, or if they were given days off on Saturdays and Sundays, including holidays, public health and sanitation would be undermined and endangered by the non-collection of garbage and other refuse, not to mention the foul odor that would fill the city atmosphere in those days.

On the third issue, the Court held that the union members have no right to overtime compensation. Since they are government employees appointed under the Civil Service Law and their salaries, wages, or emoluments are fixed by law or ordinance, section 259 of the Revised Administrative Code bars additional compensation for overtime work. The city government may grant overtime compensation, but the granting of such compensation is a matter of administrative policy that is discretionary and dependent upon the city's financial conditions. At any rate, the Eight-Hour Labor Law applies only to employment in industry or occupation performed for profit or gain, and the City, in the collection and disposal of garbage, is not engaged in an industry or occupation for profit but exercises a governmental function.

Doctrine

First, a municipal corporation performing governmental functions acts as an agent of the State and is immune from suit unless consent thereto has been given, and such consent must be expressed in unequivocal language. The collection and disposal of garbage and the conservation of public health are governmental functions.

Second, the eight-hour labor law fixed by section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act 1880, does not impose upon the local executive or legislative body the duty to apply its benefit to all employees. The exception for exigencies of the service gives the head of the office ample authority and discretion to extend the work schedule beyond the prescribed number of days and hours.

Third, under section 259 of the Revised Administrative Code, government employees appointed under the Civil Service Law, or whose salaries, wages, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulation, are not entitled to overtime compensation in the absence of special provision. The granting of such compensation is a matter of administrative policy, discretionary and dependent upon the city's financial conditions.

Fourth, the Eight-Hour Labor Law applies only to employment in industry or occupation performed for profit or gain.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against the petitioning union.

Remember This

Memorize this line: garbage collection and the conservation of public health are governmental functions, so the City acts as an agent of the State and is immune from suit absent unequivocal consent. Examiners use this case to test the governmental versus proprietary distinction, the exigencies-of-the-service exception to the eight-hour law, and the rule that the Eight-Hour Labor Law covers only employment for profit or gain.