THE ANGAT RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND VICENTE R. CRUZ, SUPERVISING PROJECT ENGINEER, PETITIONERS, VS. ANGAT RIVER WORKER’S UNION (PLUM) AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RE…

Angat River Irrigation System versus Angat River Worker's Union

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, brought by the Angat River Irrigation System and its supervising project engineer against the Angat River Worker's Union, known as PLUM, and the Court of Industrial Relations. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to stop the Industrial Court from hearing two cases filed against them: a complaint for unfair labor practice and a petition for certification as the majority bargaining union. The petitioners invoke the fundamental principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent, insisting that the Angat River Irrigation System is an instrumentality of the Government. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules: government employees may organize but may not strike, and the Government is not an employer bound to bargain collectively under the Industrial Peace Act.

Procedural History

Two proceedings were commenced in the Court of Industrial Relations. The first was a complaint for unfair labor practice, filed by the Acting Prosecutor of that Court on behalf of the union against the Angat River Irrigation System and its supervising engineer. The second was a petition for certification as the majority union, filed by the same union. When required to answer the complaint, the respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of state immunity from suit. The Industrial Court, by order of June 29, 1956, deferred action on the motion until after the presentation of evidence and directed the respondents to file their answer within five days. The respondents moved for reconsideration, but the Court denied the motion on the ground that its order was interlocutory in nature. The Angat River Irrigation System and its supervising engineer then instituted this action for prohibition in the Supreme Court, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Industrial Court from enforcing its order and from proceeding with the hearing of the certification case.

Facts

The Angat River Irrigation System is a division or section of the Bureau of Public Works, engaged in the maintenance and operation of irrigation systems in Bulacan and nearby provinces. It was created pursuant to the Irrigation Act, and its expenditures are taken care of by the National Government through itemized appropriations in the yearly General Appropriations Act. Its employees receive compensation from amounts appropriated by the Legislature.

On August 3, 1955, the union presented a statement of proposals to the employer consisting of fifteen demands. When the employer failed to act, the union president wrote to the supervising engineer and met him personally to inquire about the employer's stand. The official intimated that the employees would all be fired if they did not desist from their union activities, because their organization was illegal. A certain Feliciano Clements was demoted from water master to collector, and on September 20, 1955, Ceferino Roque, Tomas Palileo, and Abelardo Crisostomo, officers and active members of the union, were dismissed from the service.

The union then filed its complaint for unfair labor practice, alleging interference with the right to self-organization, discrimination in hiring and tenure, and refusal to bargain collectively. It also filed a petition for certification, claiming that it was a legitimate labor union holding a permit from the Department of Labor and that it consisted of at least ninety-five percent of the ordinary employees in the project. The petitioners resisted both proceedings on the ground that the Angat River Irrigation System, being an entity under the Bureau of Public Works, is an instrumentality of the Government and cannot be drawn into litigation without its consent.

Issues

• Whether or not government employees may validly organize themselves into a labor union, and in the affirmative, whether the union may demand that the Government enter into collective bargaining agreements with it.
• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants in the unfair labor practice case and the certification case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of the Industrial Peace Act, Republic Act Number 875, provides:

Section 11. Prohibition against strikes in the Government. The terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, are governed by law and it is declared to be the policy of this Act that employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes or modification in their terms and conditions of employment. Such employees may belong to any labor organization which does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided, however, That this Section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental functions and not to those employed in proprietary functions of the Government including but not limited to government corporations.

This provision is the pivot of the case: it permits organization but withholds the right to strike, and it confines its application to employees in governmental functions.

Section 13 of the same Act defines collective bargaining and is the provision the Court construes to exclude the Government from the duty to bargain:

Collective bargaining is the meeting and conferring promptly and expeditiously and in good faith, for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and of executing a written contract incorporating such agreement if requested by either party, or for the purpose of adjusting any grievances or question arising under such agreement.

The Court reads this definition together with the declaration in Section 11 that government employment is governed by law, and concludes that the Government was never meant to sit at the bargaining table as an ordinary employer.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the law does not absolutely curtail the right of government employees to self-organization. Section 11 allows them to belong to any labor organization that does not impose the obligation to strike. The Angat River Irrigation System, however, exercises governmental functions. It falls under the direct supervision of the President through the Department of Public Works, and the nature of its duties does not reveal any intent to bring the Government a special corporate benefit or pecuniary profit. The Irrigation Act establishes irrigation systems primarily for the general welfare of the people. Its employees therefore fall within the prohibition of Section 11 and outside the exception for proprietary functions.

On the duty to bargain, the Court holds that even conceding that the employees may associate, the union cannot demand that the Government negotiate and enter into agreements on wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. The Court reasons that if the law had intended to reduce the Government to the position of an ordinary employer, there would have been no reason for the statement that the terms and conditions of employment in the Government are governed by law. Those matters are fixed not by any private person but by Congress, and appointments and promotions are determined by merit and fitness under Civil Service regulations. Appropriations are disbursed not for profit but in furtherance of the policies of government. The Government is thus exempt from the operation of the provisions on collective bargaining.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the Court of Industrial Relations did not acquire jurisdiction. The Angat River Irrigation System, as an entity under the Bureau of Public Works, has no personality to sue or be sued. It is the Republic of the Philippines, if at all, that should have been sued, because the cases affect the policy of the Government toward its employees. The Court reiterates the basic principle that the Government cannot be sued before courts of justice without its consent, a privilege that extends to agencies of the Government, since any suit against an agency is in practice a suit against the Government itself. Only natural or juridical persons may be parties in an action, and an agency that cannot be sued without its consent cannot be haled into court over its objection.

Doctrine

Government employees may organize into labor unions, but only into organizations that do not impose the obligation to strike or to join a strike, and only where they are employed in governmental functions. Employees in proprietary functions, including government corporations, are outside this limitation.

The Government is not an employer within the collective bargaining provisions of the Industrial Peace Act. Terms and conditions of government employment are governed by law, fixed by Congress, and administered through the Civil Service, so the Government cannot be compelled to bargain collectively with a union of its employees.

The State cannot be sued without its consent, and this immunity extends to its agencies and instrumentalities. A government agency such as the Angat River Irrigation System has no personality to sue or be sued; the proper party is the Republic of the Philippines, and consent to suit must be express.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the writ of prohibition was issued, restraining the Court of Industrial Relations from proceeding against the Angat River Irrigation System, which cannot be sued without the consent of the State.

Remember This

Memorize the line: government employees may join a union that does not impose the obligation to strike, but the Government is not an employer bound to bargain collectively, and its agencies cannot be sued without consent. Examiners use this case on the governmental versus proprietary function distinction, on the scope of the right to self-organization of government employees, and on the non-suability of the State and its instrumentalities.