REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT SUPERVISORY AS…

The Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch LII, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner’s complaint in Civil
Case No. 88-44048 praying for a declaration of illegality of the strike of the
private respondents and to restrain the same. 
The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s petition for certiorari,
hence, this petition for review.

The key issue in this case is whether the petitioner, National Parks Development
Committee (NPDC), is a government agency, or a private corporation, for on this
issue depends the right of its employees to strike.

This issue came about because although the NPDC was originally
created in 1963 under Executive Order No. 30, as the Executive Committee for
the development of the Quezon Memorial, Luneta and other national parks, and later renamed as the
National Parks Development Committee under Executive
Order No. 68, on September 21, 1967,
it was registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a
non-stock and non-profit corporation, known as “The National Parks
Development Committee, Inc.”

However, in August, 1987, the NPDC was ordered by the SEC to show
cause why its Certificate of Registration should not be suspended for:  (a) failure to submit the General Information
Sheet from 1981 to 1987; (b) failure to submit its Financial Statements from
1981 to 1986; (c) failure to register its Corporate Books; and (d) failure to
operate for a continuous period of at least five (5) years since September 27,
1967.

On August 18, 1987,
then NPDC Chairman, Amado Lansang,
Jr., informed SEC that his Office had no objection to the suspension,
cancellation, or revocation of the Certificate of Registration of NPDC.

By virtue of Executive Order No. 120 dated January 30, 1989, the NPDC was attached to the
Ministry (later Department) of Tourism and provided with a separate budget
subject to audit by the Commission on Audit.

On September 10, 1987,
the Civil Service Commission notified NPDC that pursuant to Executive Order No.
120, all appointments and other personnel actions shall be submitted through
the Commission.

Meanwhile, the Rizal Park Supervisory
Employees Association, consisting of employees holding supervisory positions in
the different areas of the parks, was organized and it affiliated with the
Trade Union of the Philippines
and Allied Services (TUPAS) under Certificate No. 1206.

On June 15, 1987,
two collective bargaining agreements were entered into between NPDC and NPDCEA
(TUPAS local Chapter No. 967) and NPDC and NPDCSA (TUPAS Chapter No. 1206), for
a period of two years or until June
30, 1989.

On March 20, 1988,
these unions staged a strike at the Rizal Park,
Fort Santiago,
Paco Park,
and Pook ni
Mariang Makiling at Los Banos, Laguna, alleging unfair labor practices by NPDC.

On March 21, 1988, NPDC filed
in the Regional Trial Court in Manila, Branch LII, a complaint against the
union to declare the strike illegal and to restrain it on the ground that the
strikers, being government employees, have no right to strike although they may
form a union.

On March 24, 1988,
the lower court dismissed the complaint
and lifted the restraining order for lack of jurisdiction.  It held that the case “properly falls
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor,” because “there
exists an employer-employee relationship” between NPDC and the strikers,
and “that the acts complained of in the complaint, and which plaintiff
seeks to enjoin in this action, fall under paragraph 5 of Article 217 of the
Labor Code, x x x, in
relation to Art. 265 of the same Code, hence, jurisdiction over said acts does not belong to this Court but to the Labor Arbiters of
the Department of Labor.” (p. 142, Rollo.)

Petitioner went to the
Court of Appeals on certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 14204).  On March 31, 1989, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of
the trial court, hence, this petition for review.  The petitioner alleges that the Court of
Appeals erred:

1) in not holding that the NPDC
employees are covered by the Civil Service Law; and

2) in ruling that petitioner’s labor
dispute with its employees is cognizable by the Department of Labor.

We have considered the
petition filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of NPDC and the comments
thereto and are persuaded that it is
meritorious.

In Jesus P. Perlas, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 84637-39, August 2,
1989, we ruled that
the NPDC is an agency of the government, not a government-owned or controlled
corporation, hence, the Sandiganbayan had
jurisdiction over its acting director who committed estafa.  We held thus:

“The National Parks Development Committee was created
originally as an Executive Committee on January 14, 1963, for the development of the Quezon Memorial, Luneta, and
other national parks (Executive Order No. 30).  It was later designated as the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC) on February
7, 1974 (E.O.
No. 69).  On January
9, 1966, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos and Teodoro F. Valencia were designated Chairman and
Vice-Chairman respectively (E.O. No. 3). 
Despite an attempt to
transfer it to the Bureau of Forest
Development, Department of Natural Resources, on December
1, 1975
(Letter of Implementation No. 39, issued pursuant to PD No. 830, dated November
27, 1975), the NPDC has remained under
the Office of the President (E.O. No. 709, dated July 27, 1981).

“Since 1977 to 1981, the annual appropriations decrees
listed NPDC as a regular government agency under the Office of the President
and allotments for its maintenance and operating expenses were issued direct to
NPDC (Exh. 10-A, Perlas, Item No. 2, 3).” (Underscoring
ours.)

Since NPDC is a government agency, its employees are covered by
civil service rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Article IX, 1987
Constitution).  Its employees are civil
service employees (Sec. 14, Executive Order No. 180).

While NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to
organize and join unions of their
choice, there is as yet no law permitting them to strike.  In case of a labor dispute between the
employees and the government, Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180 dated June 1, 1987 provides that the Public
Sector Labor-Management Council, not the Department of Labor and Employment,
shall hear the dispute.  Clearly, the
Court of Appeals and the lower court erred in holding that the labor dispute
between the NPDC and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the Department
of Labor and Employment.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted.  The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 14204 is hereby set aside. 
The private respondents’ complaint should be filed in the Public Sector
Labor?Management Council as provided in Section 15 of Executive Order No.
180.  Costs against the
private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.