CONFEDERATION OF UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND OFFICES (CUGCO) AND GERONIMO Q. QUADRA, PETITIONERS, VS. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, TOMAS P. M…

This is an original
petition for prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction filed by (1)
Confederation of Unions in Government Corpora­tions and Offices (CUGCO), (2)
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association (PCSEA-CUGCO) and (3)
Geronimo Q. Quadra, against Abelardo Subido in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Civil Service,
Tomas P. Matic, Jr., Govern­ment Corporate Counsel, Pedro M. Gimenez,
Auditor General, and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), praying
that, upon the reasons therein set forth and after due pro­ceedings, judgment
be rendered as follows:

“(a)  Give
due course to this PETITION.

“(b)  That an order be issued commanding the
respondent Government Corporate Counsel to desist from proceeding in the
administrative investigation instituted against petitioner GERONIMO Q. QUADRA
to be conducted on April 23, 1964 and for respondents from further proceeding
administratively against the members of the petitioner unions who are em­ployed
in the Legal and Auditing Departments of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office, and in the other government-owned or controlled corporations during the
pendency of this peti­tion.

“(c)  That after hearing on the merits, to command
the respondents to desist from proceed­ing with the administrative
investigation that has been commenced against petitioner GERONIMO Q. QUADRA and
against the members of the peti­tioner unions who are employed in the Legal and Auditing Departments of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office and other government-owned or controlled corporations who
have refused to resign their membership from the petitioner unions or to
renounce the benefits they are receiving and enjoying under the Collective Bar­gaining
Agreements.

“The petitioners pray for any other remedy as may be just and
equitable in the premises.”

The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Employees Asso­ciation (PCSEA-CUGCO), however, filed on July 21,
1965 a motion to be
allowed to withdraw as party-petitioner. 
Said motion was granted in our resolution of August 5 of the same year.

On April
30, 1964 ACA WORKERS
ASSOCIATION and ACA SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION filed a motion praying that they be
allowed to intervene.  Finding the
reasons alleged in support thereof to be sufficient, their intervention was
allowed.

While the petition was
given due course, no writ of preliminary injunction was issued.  Moreover, on July 16, 1965 petitioner Quadra filed an urgent petition
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction
to prohibit the respondents from enforcing the decision of the
Commissioner of Civil Service rendered on July 14, 1965 in AC No. R-28341 against him, and/or to
compel said respondents to reinstate him, if said decision had already been
enforced.  This motion was denied in our
resolution of July 20 of the same year.

The facts upon which the remaining petitioners base their right
to the reliefs prayed for in the peti­tion are set
forth in the latter as follows:

“5.     That the respondent PCSO as early as August
18, 1956, and up to the filing of this PETITION, has recognized the
petitioner PCSEA (CUGCO) represented by petitioner GERO­NIMO Q. QUADRA, as
PCSEA (CUGCO) President and CUGCO General Secretary, as-the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent for all personnel of the PCSO who are eligible for membership
with the petitioner PCSEA (CUGCO) with res­pect to all matters involving terms
and con­ditions of employment, especially on salaries and/or rates of pay, a
copy of the latest Col­lective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the
PCSO and the PCSEA (CUGCO) is here to attached as ANNEX ‘A’ of this petition.

“6.     That on March 23, 1964, the res­pondent Abelardo Subido, Acting
Commissioner of Civil Service, issued a Memorandum-Cir­cular to the ‘AUDITOR
GENERAL, THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, AND ALL CHAIRMEN OF BOARDS AND
GENERAL MANAGERS OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS PERFORMING
PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS,’ RULING that under Rep. Act Nos. 2266 and 2327,
the Auditor General and the Government Corporate Counsel are considered the
employers of the personnel employed in the Auditing as well as in the Legal
Departments of government-owned and controlled corporations although they
perform proprietary functions and that in view thereof he directs and or­ders the Auditor General, the Government Cor­porate
Counsel, and all the Chairmen of the Boards, and General Managers of
Government-owned or controlled corporations performing proprietary functions to
require all union members of the petitioner unions employed in the Auditing and
Legal Departments of said government corporations to sever their from the
legitimate employees local unions
therein and to renounce all collective bargaining benefits or face actions, the
severest penalty of which shall be dismissal from the service.  A copy of this Memorandum-Circular is hereto
attached as ANNEX ‘B’ of this petition.

“7.     That on April 1, 1964 the
respondent Auditor General in Memorandum-Circular No. 487, ORDERED ‘ALL
CHAIRMEN OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, MANAGING HEADS AND AUDITORS OF
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS PERFORMING PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS,
AND OTHERS CONCERNED’ to comply with the aforesaid Memo­randum-Circular No. 15 of the respondent Act­ing
Commissioner of Civil Service.

“8.     That on April 2, 1964, the
respondent Government Corporate Counsel, wrote a letter to the Board of
Directors and General Manager of
the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office, inviting their attention to the Memorandum-Circular No. 15 of the respondent Acting Com­missioner of Civil Service and DIRECTING
all lawyers employed in the Legal Department of the PCSO to
sever their membership with the petitioner PCSEA (CUGCO) and to renounce at once all benefits said
lawyers are receiving and enjoining under the Collective bargaining agree­ment entered into between the PCSO and the PCSEA (CUGCO) and
failure to secede from the union
or to renounce the benefits they are receiving and enjoying under the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be a ground for disciplinary
action, the severest penalty of which shall be dismissal from the service.  A copy of
this letter is hereto attached as ANNEX ‘C’ of this petition.

“9.     That on April
10, 1964, the
Corporate Auditor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office wrote a letter
to the President of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Asso­ciation
requiring compliance with the Memoran­dum-Circular of the Auditor General.  A copy of this Circular and letter
are hereto attached as ANNEXES ‘D’ and ‘D-1′ of this petition.

“10.   That on April 13, 1964, the peti­tioners sent
to the Board of Directors, thru ­the Acting General Manager of the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Auditor General thru the PCSO Corporation
Auditor, a reply protesting to the actuations of the respondent Acting
Commissioner of Civil Service, the Auditor General and the Govern­ment
Corporate Counsel.  A copy of said
letter-memorandum is hereto attached and integrated as ANNEXES ‘E’ and ‘E-1’ of this petition.

“11.   That notwithstanding said protest the
Government Corporate Counsel thru his assistant on the same date, instead
initiated administrative proceedings against the peti­tioner GERONIMO Q.
QUADRA, and for him to appear and submit for investigation, the hear­ing of
which is scheduled to be held at the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
on April 23, 1964.  A copy of this Order
and complaint is hereto attached as ANNEXES ‘F’ and ‘F-1’ of this petition.

“12.   That in view of the above-stated Circulars of
the respondents, members of the affiliate local unions of the CUGCO who are
employed in the Auditing and Legal Depart­ments in the various government-owned
or con­trolled corporations performing proprietary functions, stand to lose
their employment (let alone all the benefits that would be lost which they are
now receiving and en­joying under a Collective Bargaining Agree­ment as well as
the other resultant benefits and incidents of union membership), UNLESS they follow the directives of the respondents requiring them sever their membership, with
the local employees unions and to renounce all the benefit they are now enjoying under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of notification to that effect as contained in the
circulars of the respondents Acting Commis­sioner of Civil Service Auditor General and
the Government Corporate Counsel above-men­tioned.

“In the PCSO alone, there
are about ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120)
members of the petitioner unions employed in the Legal and Auditing De­partments
of the said Office who are adversely affected by the directives of the
respondents.

“13.   That because of the
Memorandum-Circular of Abelardo Subido,
the respondent Government Corporate Counsel Tomas P. Matic,
Jr. is subjecting petitioner GERONIMO Q. QUADRA,
the principal leader of the afore­mentioned petitioner unions to an administra­tive
proceedings in connection with his union activities as PCSEA (CUGCO) President
and as General Secretary of the CUGCO where he appeared in the Court of
Industrial Relations in Case No. 2701-ULP,
PCSEA (CUGCO-KMP) vs. PCSO, Case No. 3442-ULP, CUGCO & PCSEA VS. PCSO &
IGNACIO SAN­TOS DIAZ, and Case No. 3076-ULP, MAGALIT, ET AL vs. PCSEA, et al.
of which the latter now is pending consideration on appeal before this
Honorable Tribunal in G.R. No. L-20448, en­titled MAGALIT, et al vs. CIR,
PCSEA, QUADRA, et al.

“14.   That the proceedings of the res­pondents
Government Corporate Counsel and Auditor General occasioned by the Memorandum
Circular of the Acting Commissioner of Civil Service to subject members of the
petitioner unions and petitioner GERONIMO Q. QUADRA to administrative
proceedings is without juris­diction, in excess of their jurisdiction and
conducted with grave abuse of discretion.”

From the above facts and the prayer for relief contained in the
petition, it appears that petitioners main objective is to prohibit
respondents, particularly the Government
Corporate Counsel, from proceeding with the administrative investigation
against petitioner Quadra, and to prohibit them further from taking any
administrative or punitive action against the personnel of the auditing and
legal staffs of government owned or controlled corporations who had not
complied with Memo­randum Circular No. 15, series of 1964 of respondent
Commissioner of Civil Service by severing their connection with the Unions
existing in said corporations affiliated with CUGCO.

It is not disputed that
on March 23, 1964
the respondent, the Acting Commissioner of Civil Service, issued Memorandum
Circular No. 15, series of 1964, whose pertinent portion reads as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, all per­sonnel of the General
Auditing Office as well as of the legal staffs of all govern­ment-owned or
controlled corporations are hereby declared to be embraced in the Civil Service
and they belong either to the classified or unclassified service unless other­wise
provided by law.  They are therefore not
within the coverage of Memorandum Cir­cular Nos. 1 and 3, current series, of
this Office.  Appointments of these
personnel should be forwarded to this Office for approval in accordance with
the Civil Service Law and Rules.

“The said personnel may belong to any labor organization which
does not impose the obligation to strike or to join strikes.  If any of these personnel have previously
joined any labor union which imposes the obligation to strike or to join
strikes, he should sever his membership within se­venty-two (72) hours from
receipt of this Memorandum Circular by the corporations con­cerned.  Moreover, if any member of the legal staff of
said corporations is re­ceiving benefits under a collective bar­gaining
contract entered into between management and the union, he should re­nounce
such benefit at once.  Failure to secede
from the union which imposes the obligation to strike or to join strikes or to
renounce the benefits of the collective bargaining agreements shall be a ground
for disciplinary action for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, the severest penalty of which shall be dismissal from the service.

“New appointments should be issued to employees who have
renounced benefits under a collective bargaining contract, which must conform with the Civil Service Law and Rules, and submitted to this
Office for approval.

“A list of personnel covered by this Memorandum Circular
should be submitted to this Office within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof
by the corporations concerned.”

Neither is it questioned
that on April 1, 1964 the Auditor General issued his own Memorandum Circular
No. 487 ordering all chairmen of the board of directors, managing heads and
auditors of government owned or controlled cor­porations performing proprietary
functions, and others concerned, to comply with Memorandum Circular No. 15
mentioned heretofore, and that sometime prior to April 23, 1964 the Government
Corporate Counsel initiated administra­tive proceedings against petitioner
Quadra for misconduct in office and/or conduct prejudicial to the service.

In so far as the present action was intended to prohibit the
respondent Government Corporate Counsel and the respondent Commissioner of
Civil Service from continuing with the administrative investigation against
Quadra (AC No. R-28341), the same has practically become moot and academic
because on July 14, 1965 the aforesaid Commissioner of Civil Service rendered
judgment in said case finding Quadra “guilty as charged”, and imposed
upon him “the penalty of dismissal from the service effective upon receipt
of this decision” (record pp. 134 and 137).  Moreover, from the facts stated in said
decision, it appears that the charges investigated in that administrative case
have no bearing upon Memorandum Circular No. 15 because they involved Quadra’s
actuations as Chief Legal Officer of the Philip­pine Charity Sweepstakes
Office.  Specifically he was charged with
having represented in several particular cases interests adverse to the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office of which he was the Chief Legal Officer; with
neglect of duty and practicing his profession as lawyer without per­mission
from competent authority; all in violation of per­tinent provisions of the
Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.

The above
notwithstanding, of course, the main question raised in the petition remains,
and it is whether Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of 1964, issued by the
respondent Commissioner of Civil Service, is valid.  While, on the one hand, petitioners claim
that said respondent had no authority nor jurisdiction to issue said circular;
that the provisions thereof are in violation of the Constitution and of
pertinent laws guaranteeing their right to form associations or societies for purposes
not contrary to law and the right of government employees and workers to form,
join and assist labor unions of their own choosing for the purpose of
collective bargaining, and to engage in concerted activities to secure and
effect changes or modifications in their terms and conditions of employment, on
the other hand, the respondents contend that the questioned memorandum circular
was issued to give life to the civil service law and related legislations,
particularly Republic Act No. 2266,
affecting the auditing personnel in government owned or controlled
corporations, and Republic Act No. 2337, as amended by Republic Act No. 3838,
affecting the legal staffs of said corporations.

We agree with
respondents’ view.

Under the provisions
of Republic Act 2266 the Auditor
General appoints and fixes the salaries and the number of the personnel
to assist his representative in government owned and controlled corporations,
although the expenses for the maintenance and operation of the Auditing Office
are to be borne by the corporations.  On
the other hand, under Section 1 of Republic Act 2327, as amended by Republic
Act No. 3838, the position of Govern­ment Corporate Counsel is made
“distinct and separate from the office of the Solicitor General” and
is made the principal law officer of all government owned or controlled
corporations, and exercises control and super­vision over all legal divisions
maintained separately by said corporations.

Clearly deducible from
the foregoing is that the personnel of the auditing staff in the different
govern­ment owned or controlled corporations are under the office of the
Auditor General, while those of the legal staff of said corporations are under
the office of the Government Corporate Counsel, and that all of them are
embraced and covered by the civil service law, whether they belong to the
classified or the unclassified service. 
This view is in line with our ruling in National Marketing Corporation etc.
vs. CIR and PRISCO Workers Union et al.
(G.R. No. L-17004, January 31,
1963) where We held as follows:

“We agree with appellants that members of the auditing force can not be regarded as employees
of PRISCO in matters relating to their compensation.  They are appointed and supervised by the
Auditor General, have an independent tenure, and work subject to his orders and instructions, and not to those of
the management of appellants.  Above all,
the nature of their functions and duties, for the purpose of fiscal control of
appellants’ operations, imperatively demands, as a matter of policy, that their
positions be completely independent from interference or inducement on the part
of the supervised management, in order to assure a maximum of impartiality in
the auditing functions.  Both independence
and impartiality require that the employees in question be utterly free from
apprehension as to their tenure and from ex­pectancy of benefits resulting from
any action of the management, since in either case there would be an influence
at work that could pos­sibly lead, if not be positive malfeasance, to laxity
and indifference that would gradual­ly erode and endanger the critical
supervision entrusted to these auditing employees.”

While the ruling cited above affected members of the auditing
force working in government owned or controlled corporations, it should
likewise apply to the case of the personnel of the legal staffs or divisions of
the same corporations, for obvious reasons.

But petitioners claim that the questioned circular is
unconstitutional because it violates their right to form or join associations
or labor unions of their choice.  We
believe otherwise.  It is worth
remembering that the right to form and join associations and unions is not absolute or
unlimited.  Thus, if a person accepts
employ­ment that falls under the civil service law and his employer performs
governmental functions – such as the General Audit­ing Office and the
Government Corporate Counsel’s Office – he may not resort to and exercise the
right to strike, be­cause that is prohibited
by law.  Having accepted the em­ployment
freely and being chargeable with knowledge of the fact that he has no right to
resort to strike to enforce his demands against his employer,
his only recourse is either to respect and comply with that condition or
resign.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the writ prayed for is
denied and the petition for prohibition under consideration is dismissed, with
costs.

Concepcion,
Reyes, JBL,  Makalintal, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar and Villamor, JJ.,
took no part.