G.R. No. 24572. December 20, 1967
THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK AND FRANCISCO V. LOPEZ, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PHILIPPINE C…
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
This is a petition for review by certiorari of an order and a
resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations, hereinafter referred to as
CIR, although the petition states that it may, also, be “considered as a
petition for certiorari under rule 65, Rules of Court.”
The record shows that, on or about August 24, 1964, the
Philippine Communications, Electronics and Electricity Workers Federation
filed, with the CIR, a petition docketed therein as Case No. 1409-MC, praying
that said Federation be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all the employees of the Philippine Postal Savings Bank. The latter moved to dismiss the petition upon
the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the CIR to hear and decide it, upon the
ground that the Bank is a mere division and, hence, an integral part of the
Bureau of Posts, which performs governmental functions and is not
subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 875. After conducting a preliminary hearing, Judge
Bugayong of the
CIR issued an order dated March 4, 1965,
denying the motion to dismiss, and directing that the case be set for hearing
on the merits. A reconsideration of this
order having been denied by the CIR, sitting en banc, in a
resolution dated April 8, 1965, the Bank and its Superintendent, Francisco V.
Lopez, filed the present petition for review by certiorari to set aside the
aforementioned order and resolution of March 4 and April 8, 1965.
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875 provides:
“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 imposed the obligation to strike or 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 governmental corporations.”
This section permits government employees to join labor
organizations, as well as upholds their right to self-organization. In connection therewith, they are divided in
to two (2) groups, namely, those employed in governmental functions, and those
engaged in proprietary functions. Those belonging to the first class may not
belong to labor organizations which “impose the obligation to strike or
join in strike;” but, those pertaining to the second class are not subject
to such restriction. In other words, they may join said labor
organizations and may strike “for the purpose of securing changes or
modification in their terms and condition of employment.” Needless to
say, this power to strike necessarily implies that they may, likewise, resort to the peaceful and
non-violent means of collective bargaining to achieve said objective. Hence, the jurisdiction of the CIR to hear
and decide disputes affecting employees engaged in proprietary functions is
well-settled.[1]
The issue for our determination is whether or not the members of respondent
Federation are employed in proprietary functions.
Petitioners herein maintain that they are not, because the Bank
is merely a division of the Bureau of Posts, which has no personality of its
own, independently of that of the Government, and cannot be sued, therefore,
without the latter’s consent. The cases
cited by petitioners herein[2]
in support of this pretense are not
decisive of the issue before us.
The METRAN Case was
decided on January 12, 1948, or several years before the passage of Republic
Act No. 875, on June 17, 1963. The
employees involved therein did not have, therefore, the benefit of Section 11
of said Act. Moreover, as a mere office
of the Government, the METRAN was an integral part thereof. This was, also, the ratio decidendi in
the cases of Metropolitan Waterworks1 and National Airports Corporation.2 It is true
that, in the case of the Angat River Irrigation
System,3 it was held that, being an agency of the Government, this System could
not be sued. Indeed, the System was but
a Section of the Division of Irrigation of the Bureau of Public Works, which is
under the direct control of the President, through the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications; the expenditures of the System were defrayed by the
National Government; the appropriation for the System was included in the General
Appropriations Act; and the salaries
and wages of the officials and employees of the System were itemized in said
Act, just like the compensation of other officials and employees of the
Government.
Petitioner Bank is not in the same situation. It operates separately from the
Bureau of Posts. It keeps a set of books
of account distinct from those of said Bureau.
Although the latter advances the Bank’s operational expenses, the
same are refunded by the Bank out of its earnings and reserve funds. These earnings do not accrue to the
general funds. They remain with the
Bank and are invested by it. The
properties acquired in the course of the operation of the Bank are invested in,
and managed by, the same, for its own benefit. Hence, in Government of the Philippine
Islands vs. China Banking Corporation,4 this
Court held:
“x x x
while it is true that the Postal Savings Bank is a division of the Bureau of
Posts (sec. 1986, Administrative Code), which is, in turn, under the Department
of Commerce and Communications of the Philippine Government (Sec. 86, Adm.
Code), and although the board of directors of said bank is made up of
Government officials (sec. 1989, Adm. Code) still property acquired by said
bank is its own particular property (sec. 2033), and its reserve fund is
not revenue fund in the sense of section 614 of said Code, but a trust fund
to be used ‘for no other purpose than to meet deficits In those years after
its establishment in which the earnings of the bank are not sufficient to pay
the expenses of the bank’ (sec. 2035, Adm. Code), which expenses, however,
though for the time paid by the
Bureau of Posts, are to be repaid to said bureau at the end of each fiscal year
(sec. 2037, Adm. Code.)
“From this it follows that the funds of the Postal Savings
Bank cannot be termed Insular Government funds, and debts contracted in
favor of said bank in its ordinary operations as provided by law are not to be held debts in favor of the
Insular Government, but in its own name and behalf and for its own benefit,
as may be implied from the law on the matter.
In such a loan, therefore, the Insular Government is not the
lender or the creditor; and hence, the debt is contracted not in its favor
but in favor of the Postal Savings Bank, which has a personality
of its own.”1
We hold, therefore, that the Bank
performs proprietary functions.
Besides, the right of a Government employee to fully enjoy the benefits
of Republic Act No. 875, is dependent, not on whether the office
in which he works is engaged in governmental or proprietary functions, but on
the nature of the work for which his services have been engaged. For this reason, the above-quoted section 11
provides that the restriction contained therein does not apply “to those
employed in proprietary functions including but not limited to
government corporations.” This implies that even those employed in an
office of the government which, not being a corporation, with a
personality distinct and separate from the government, is an integral
part thereof, may avail of the provisions of Republic Act No. 875, if they
in particular — as distinguished from the office, in general — are employed or
engaged in proprietary functions.
At any rate, on October
28, 1965, the President of the Philippines
certified the issue between the parties herein to the CIR, pursuant to Sec. 10
of Republic Act No. 875, as a dispute affecting an industry indispensable to
the national interest, thus leaving no room for doubt on the jurisdiction of
the CIR to settle such dispute. What is
more, on November 21, 1966,
petitioner asked the CIR to
order the Federation and its members to return to work. After a conference called by the CIR, both
parties reached an agreement pursuant to which the respondents undertook t o
return to work and the petitioners bound themselves to deposit in Court
P83,000.00 in payment of salary increases and overtime differentials, and to
make specified promotional appointments.
Thus, petitioners have not only submitted themselves to the jurisdiction
of the Court. They have, also, invoked
the authority thereof to avail themselves of the benefit of Republic Act
No. 875.
WHEREFORE, the order and the resolution appealed from are
hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Co., et al., 73
Phil., 374 (1941); Metropolitan Water District v. CIR, 91 Phil.,
840(1952); NARIC v. NARIC Workers’ Union, 98 Phil., 563 (1956); GSIS v. Hon. Modesto Castillo, 98 Phil., 876 (1956); Price Stabilization Corporation v.
CIR, 102 Phil., 515 (1957); Manila
Port Service v. CIR, L-16994, June 30, 1961; Social Security System
Employees Association (PAFLU) v. Judge E. Soriano,
etc., et al., G.R. No. L-18081, April
30, 1963; and Associated Workers Union, et.
al. v. Bu. of Customs as arrastre operator, et al., L-21397, August 3, 1963, 59 O.G. 8055.
[2]
Metropolitan Transportation Service (METRAN) v. Paredes,
79 Phil. 819; National Airports Corp. v. Yanson,
89 Phil., 745 (1951); Angat River Irrigation System v.
Angat River Workers Union L-10943, Dec. 28, 1957; Roldan v. Philippine Veterans Board, 57 O.G. 8293 (1959); University of the
Philippines v. CIR, G.R. L-15416, April 28, 1960; Dept. of Public
Services Labor Union v. CIR, G.R. No. L-15458, Jan. 28, 1961;
Bu. of Printing v. Bu. of Printing Employees Ass’n.,
et al. L-15751, Jan. 28, 1961; Mobil Philippines
Exploration Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service,
L-23139, Dec. 17, 1966; and Manila Electric Company v. Customs Arrastre
Service, L-25515, July 24, 1967.
1 91 Phil., 840. Likewise, decided in 1952, or before the
passage of Republic Act No. 875.
2 89 Phil., 745 (1951).
3 L-10943, Dec. 28, 1957.
4 54 Phil., 845, 847
(1930).
1 See, also, Joseph A. Stiver vs. Paciano Dizon, 76 Phil., 725, 729; Leoquimco
v. Postal Savings Bank, 47 Phil., 772; and Robinson v. Sackermann, 46 Phil., 539.