Consti Case (Accfa vs Cugco) Full Case

7/24/2019 Consti Case (Accfa vs Cugco) Full Case

1/18

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21484 November 29, 1969

THE AGRICULTURAL CREIT !"# COOPERATI$E %INANCING AMINISTRATION&ACC%A',petitioner,vs.ACC%A SUPER$ISORS( ASSOCIATION, ACC%A )OR*ERS( ASSOCIATION, !"# THE COURTO% INUSTRIAL RELATIONS,respondents.

Deogracias E. Lerma and Esmeraldo U. Guloy for petitioner Agricultural Credit and CooperativeFinancing Administration.Office of the Agrarian Counsel, Department of ustice for petitioner Agricultural Credit Administration

. C. Espinas and Associates for respendents Confederation of Unions in Government CorporationsOffices, et al. !ariano ". #uason for respondent Court of $ndustrial %elations.

MA*ALINTAL, J.:

These are two separate appeals by certiorari fro the decision dated March !", #$%& '(.R. No. )*!#++- and the order dated May !#, #$%+ '(.R. No. )*!&%"- as affired by the resolutions en&anc, of the Court of /ndustrial Relations, in Cases Nos. &+"*0)P and #&!1*MC, respectively. Theparties, e2cept the Confederation of 0nions in (overnent Corporations and 3ffices 'C0(C3-,bein4 practically the sae and the principal issues involved related, only one decision is nowrendered in these two cases.

The A4ricultural Credit and Cooperative 5inancin4 Adinistration 'ACC5A- was a 4overnenta4ency created under Republic Act No. !#, as aended. /ts adinistrative achinery wasreor4ani6ed and its nae chan4ed to A4ricultural Credit Adinistration 'ACA- under the )andRefor Code 'Republic Act No. &++-. 3n the other hand, the ACC5A 7upervisors8 Association'A7A- and the ACC5A 9or:ers8 Association 'A9A-, hereinafter referred to as the 0nions, are laboror4ani6ations coposed of the supervisors and the ran:*and*file eployees, respectively, in the

ACC5A 'now ACA-.

G.%. 'o. L()*++

3n 7epteber +, #$%# a collective bar4ainin4 a4reeent, which was to be effective for a period ofone '#- year fro ;uly #, #$%#, was entered into by and between the 0nions and the ACC5A. A few

onths thereafter, the 0nions started protestin4 a4ainst alle4ed violations and non*ipleentationof said a4reeent. 5inally, on 3ctober !", #$%! the 0nions declared a stri:e, which was endedwhen the stri:ers voluntarily returned to wor: on Noveber !%, #$%!.

3n 3ctober &, #$%! the 0nions, to4ether with its other union, the Confederation of 0nions in(overnent Corporations and 3ffices 'C0(C3-, filed a coplaint with the Court of /ndustrialRelations a4ainst the ACC5A 'Case No. &+"*0)P- for havin4 alle4edly coitted acts of unfairlabor practice, naely< violation of the collective bar4ainin4 a4reeent in order to discoura4e theebers of the 0nions in the e2ercise of their ri4ht to self*or4ani6ation, discriination a4ainst said


2/18

ebers in the atter of prootions, and refusal to bar4ain. The ACC5A denied the char4es andinterposed as affirative and special defenses lac: of =urisdiction of the C/R over the case, ille4alityof the bar4ainin4 contract, e2piration of said contract and lac: of approval by the office of thePresident of the frin4e benefits provided for therein. Brushin4 aside the fore4oin4 defenses, the C/Rin its decision dated March !", #$%& ordered the ACC5A

!. To coply with and ipleent the provision of the collective bar4ainin4 contract e2ecutedon 7epteber +, #$%#, includin4 the payent of P&. a onth livin4 allowance>

&. To bar4ain in 4ood faith and e2peditiously with the herein coplainants.

The ACC5A oved to reconsider but was turned down in a resolution dated April !", #$%& of theC/R en &anc. Thereupon it brou4ht this appeal by certiorari.

The ACC5A raises the followin4 issues in its petition, to wit if valid, whether or not it has already lapsed> and if not, whether ornot its 'sic- frin4e benefits are already enforceable.

&. 9hether or not there is a le4al and?or factual basis for the findin4 of the respondent courtthat the petitioner had coitted acts of unfair labor practice.

+. 9hether or not it is within the copetence of the court to enforce the collective bar4ainin4

a4reeent between the petitioner and the respondent unions, the sae havin4 alreadye2pired.

G.%. 'o. L()-/0

@urin4 the pendency of the above entioned case '(.R. No. )*!#++-, specifically on Au4ust ,#$%&, the President of the Philippines si4ned into law the A4ricultural )and Refor Code 'Republic

Act No. &++-, which aon4 other thin4s reuired the reor4ani6ation of the adinistrative achineryof the A4ricultural Credit and Cooperative 5inancin4 Adinistration 'ACC5A- and chan4ed its naeto A4ricultural Credit Adinistration 'ACA-. 3n March #1, #$%+ the ACC5A 7upervisors8 Associationand the ACC5A 9or:ers8 Association filed a petition for certification election with the Court of/ndustrial Relations 'Case No. #&!1*MC- prayin4 that they be certified as the e2clusive bar4ainin4

a4ents for the supervisors and ran:*and*file eployees, respectively, in the ACA. The trial Court inits order dated March &, #$%+ directed the Mana4er or 3fficer*in*Char4e of the ACA to allow thepostin4 of said order for the inforation of all eployees and wor:ers thereof, and to answer thepetition. /n copliance therewith, the ACA, while adittin4 ost of the alle4ations in the petition,denied that the 0nions represented the a=ority of the supervisors and ran:*and*file wor:ers,respectively, in the ACA. /t further alle4ed that the petition was preature, that the ACA was not theproper party to be notified and to answer the petition, and that the eployees and supervisors couldnot lawfully becoe ebers of the 0nions, nor be represented by the. owever, in a =ointanifestation of the 0nions dated May 1, #$%+, with the confority of the ACA Adinistrator and of


3/18

the A4rarian Counsel in his capacity as such and as counsel for the National )and Refor Council, itwas a4reed that the union petitioners in this case represent the a=ority of the eployees in theirrespective bar4ainin4 units and that only the le4al issues raised would be subitted for theresolution of the trial Court.

5indin4 the reainin4 4rounds for ACA8s opposition to the petition to be without erit, the trial Court

in its order dated May !#, #$%+ certified the ACC5A 9or:ers8 Association and the ACC5A7upervisors8 Association as the sole and e2clusive bar4ainin4 representatives of the ran:*and*fileeployees and supervisors, respectively, of the A4ricultural Credit Adinistration. 7aid order wasaffired by the C/R en &ancin its resolution dated Au4ust !+, #$%+.

3n 3ctober !, #$%+ the ACA filed in this Court a petition for certiorari with ur4ent otion to stay theC/R order of May !#, #$%+. /n a resolution dated 3ctober %, #$%+, this Court disissed the petitionfor lac: of adeuate alle4ations, but the disissal was later reconsidered when the ACA copliedwith the foral reuireent stated in said resolution. As prayed for, this Court ordered the C/R tostay the e2ecution of its order of May !#, #$%+.

/n this appeal, the ACA in effect challen4es the =urisdiction of the C/R to entertain the petition of the

0nions for certification election on the 4round that it 'ACA- is en4a4ed in 4overnental functions.The 0nions =oin the issue on this sin4le point, contendin4 that the ACA fors proprietary functions.

0nder 7ection & of the A4ricultural )and Refor Code the ACA was established, aon4 other4overnental a4encies,#to e2tend credit and siilar assistance to a4riculture, in pursuance of thepolicy enunciated in 7ection ! as follows

'&- To create a truly viable social and econoic structure in a4riculture conducive to 4reaterproductivity and hi4her far incoes>

'+- To apply all labor laws eually and without discriination to both industrial anda4ricultural wa4e earners>

'"- To provide a ore vi4orous and systeatic land resettleent pro4ra and public landdistribution> and

'%- To a:e the sall farers ore independent, self*reliant and responsible citi6ens, and asource of 4enuine stren4th in our deocratic society.

The ipleentation of the policy thus enunciated, insofar as the role of the ACA therein isconcerned, is spelled out in 7ections ## to ##, inclusive, of the )and Refor Code. 7ection ##provides that the adinistrative achinery of the ACC5A shall be reor4ani6ed to enable it to ali4nits activities with the reuireents and ob=ective of this Code and shall be :nown as the A4riculturalCredit Adinistration. 0nder 7ection ##! the su of P#",, was appropriated out of national


4/18

funds to finance the additional credit functions of the ACA as a result of the land refor pro4ra laiddown in the Code. 7ection #& 4rants the ACA the privile4e of rediscountin4 with the Central Ban:,the @evelopent Ban: of the Philippines and the Philippine National Ban:. 7ection #" directs theloanin4 activities of the ACA to stiulate the developent of farers8 cooperatives, includin4 thoserelatin4 to the production and ar:etin4 of a4ricultural products and those fored to ana4e and?orown, on a cooperative basis, services and facilities, such as irri4ation and transport systes,

established to support production and?or ar:etin4 of a4ricultural products. 7ection #% deals withthe e2tension by ACA of credit to sall farers in order to stiulate a4ricultural production. 7ections#1 to ##! lay down certain 4uidelines to be followed in connection with the 4rantin4 of loans, suchas security, interest and supervision of credit. 7ections ##& to ##, inclusive, invest the ACA withcertain ri4hts and powers not accorded to non*4overnental entities, thus the latter condenin4 it, it is true, when theforer propose it, but endorsin4 it, after it has becoe a fi2ed part of the status uo, as so beneficial


11/18

in its effects that no ore of it is needed. 3ur history for the last half*century shows that eachiportant 4overnental intervention we have adopted has been called socialistic or counistic byconteporary conservatives, and has later been approved by eually conservative en who nowaccept it both for its proved benefits and for the worthy traditions it has coe to represent. Bothliberal and conservative supporters of our lar4e*scale business under private ownership advocate orconcede the aounts and :inds of 4overnental liitation and aid which they re4ard as necessary

to a:e the syste wor: efficiently and huanely. 7ooner or later, they are willin4 to have4overnent intervene for the purpose of preventin4 the syste fro bein4 too oppressive to theasses of the people, protectin4 it fro its self*destructive errors, and coin4 to its help in otherways when it appears not to be able to ta:e care of itself.#

At any rate, by #$+&, the 0nited 7tates was reconciled to laisse6(fairehavin4 lost its doinance. /nthe lan4ua4e of ;ustice ;ac:son in the leadin4 case of 3est


12/18

3ur constitution which too: effect in #$&", upon the inau4uration of the Coonwealth of thePhilippines, erased whatever doubts there i4ht be on that score. /ts philosophy is antithetical tothe laisse6(faireconcept. @ele4ate, later President, Manuel Ro2as, one of the leadin4 ebers ofthe Constitutional Convention, in answer precisely to an ob=ection of @ele4ate ;ose Reyes of7orso4on, who noted the vast e2tensions in the sphere of 4overnental functions and the alostunliited power to interfere in the affairs of industry and a4riculture as well as to copete with

e2istin4 business as reflections of the fascination e2erted by Ithe thenJ current tendencies in other=urisdictions,!+spo:e thus< My answer is that this constitution has a definite and well definedphilosophy, not only political but social and econoic. A constitution that in #11% or in #1$ wassufficient in the 0nited 7tates, considerin4 the probles they had at that tie, ay not now besufficient with the 4rowin4 and ever*widenin4 cople2ities of social and econoic probles andrelations. /f the 0nited 7tates of Aerica were to call a constitutional convention today to draft aconstitution for the 0nited 7tates, does any one doubt that in the provisions of that constitution therewill be found definite declarations of policy as to econoic tendencies> that there will be atterswhich are necessary in accordance with the e2perience of the Aerican people durin4 these yearswhen vast or4ani6ations of capital and trade have succeeded to a certain de4ree to control the lifeand destiny of the Aerican peopleK /f in this constitution the 4entlean will find declarations ofeconoic policy, they are there because they are necessary to safe4uard the interests and welfareof the 5ilipino people because we believe that the days have coe when in self*defense, a nation

ay provide in its constitution those safe4uards, the patriony, the freedo to 4row, the freedo todevelop national aspirations and national interests, not to be hapered by the artificial boundarieswhich a constitutional provision autoatically iposes.!"

@ele4ate Ro2as continued further< The 4overnent is the creature of the people and the4overnent e2ercises its powers and functions in accordance with the will and purposes of thepeople. That is the first principle, the ost iportant one underlyin4 this docuent. 7econd, the4overnent established in this docuent is, in its for, in our opinion, the ost adapted toprevailin4 conditions, circustances and the political outloo: of the 5ilipino people. Ri6al said, 8Everypeople has the :ind of 4overnent that they deserve.8 That is =ust another for of e2pressin4 theprinciple in politics enunciated by the 5rench philosophers when they said< 8Every people has theri4ht to establish the for of 4overnent which they believe is ost conducive to their welfare and

their liberty.8 9hy have we preferred the 4overnent that is established in this draftK Because it isthe 4overnent with which we are failiar. /t is the for of 4overnent fundaentally such as ite2ists today> because it is the only :ind of 4overnent that our people understand> it is the :ind of4overnent we have found to be in consonance with our e2perience, with the necessaryodification, capable of perittin4 a fair play of social forces and allowin4 the people to conduct theaffairs of that 4overnent.!%

3ne of the ost proinent dele4ates, a leadin4 intellectual, forer President Rafael Pala of the0niversity of the Philippines, stressed as a fundaental principle in the draft of the Constitution theliitation on the ri4ht to property. e pointed out that the then prevailin4 view allowed theaccuulation of wealth in one faily down to the last reote descendant, resultin4 in a 4ravediseuilibriu and brin4in4 in its wa:e e2tree isery side by side with conspicuous lu2ury. e didinvite attention to the few illionaires at one e2tree with the vast asses of 5ilipinos deprived of

the necessities of life at the other. e as:ed the Convention whether the 5ilipino people could lon4reain indifferent to such a deplorable situation. 5or hi to spea: of a deocracy under suchcircustances would be nothin4 but an il lusion. e would thus ephasi6e the ur4ent need toreedy the 4rave social in=ustice that had produced such widespread ipoverishent, thusreco4ni6in4 the vital role of 4overnent in this sphere.!1

Another dele4ate, Toas Confesor of /loilo, was uite ephatic in his assertion for the need of asocial =ustice provision which is a departure fro the laisse6(faire principle. Thus< Ta:e the case ofthe tenancy syste in the Philippines. Hou have a tenant. There are hundreds of thousands of


13/18

tenants wor:in4 day in and day out, cultivatin4 the fields of their landlords. e puts all his tie, all hisener4y, the labor and the assistance of his wife and children, in cultivatin4 a piece of 4round for hislandlord but when the tie coes for the partition of the products of his toil what happensK /f heproduces !" cavanesof rice, he 4ets only perhaps five and the twenty 4oes to the landlord. Now canhe 4o to courtK as he a chance to 4o to court in order to secure his =ust share of the products of histoilK No. 0nder our present re4ie of law, under our present re4ie of =ustice, you do not 4ive that

to the poor tenant. (entleen, you 4o to the Ca4ayan Galley and see the condition under whichthose poor farers are bein4 e2ploited day in and day out. Can they 4o to court under our presentre4ie of =ustice, of liberty, or deocracyK The other day, wor:en were shot by the police =ustbecause they wanted to increase or they desired that their wa4es be increased fro thirty centavosa day to forty or fifty centavos. /s it necessary to spill huan blood =ust to secure an increase of tencentavos in the daily wa4es of an ordinary laborerK And yet under our present re4ie of social

=ustice, liberty and deocracy, these thin4s are happenin4> these thin4s, / say, are happenin4. Arethose people 4ettin4 any =usticeK No. They cannot 4et =ustice now fro our courts. 5or this reason, /say it is necessary that we insert 8social =ustice8 here and that social =ustice ust be established bylaw. Proper le4al provisions, proper le4al facilities ust be provided in order that there be a re4ienot of =ustice alone, because we have that now and we are seein4 the oppression arisin4 fro sucha re4ie. Conseuently, we ust ephasi6e the ter 8social =ustice8.!

@ele4ate Gentenilla of Pan4asinan reflected the attitude of the Convention as to why laisse6(fairewas no lon4er acceptable. After spea:in4 of ties havin4 chan4ed, he proceeded< 7ince thennew probles have arisen. The spiritual ission of 4overnent has descended to the level of theaterial. Then its function was priarily to soothe the achin4 spirit. Now, it appears, it ust alsoappease hun4er. Now that we ay read history bac:wards, we :now for instance, that the old theoryof 8laisse6(faire8 has de4enerated into 8bi4 business affairs8 which are 4radually devourin4 the ri4htsof the people D the sae ri4hts intended to be 4uarded and protected by the syste ofconstitutional 4uaranties. 3h, if the 5athers were now alive to see the chan4es that the centurieshave wrou4ht in our lifeL They i4ht conteplate the sad spectacle of or4ani6ed e2ploitation 4reedilydevourin4 the previous ri4hts of the individual. They i4ht also behold the 4radual disinte4ration ofsociety, the fast disappearance of the bour4eois D the iddle class, the bac:bone of the nation Dand the conseuent driftin4 of the classes toward the opposite e2trees D the very rich and the

very poor.!$

7hortly after the establishent of the Coonwealth, the then ;ustice ;ose P. )aurel, hiself one ofthe foreost dele4ates of the Constitutional Convention, in a concurrin4 opinion, later uoted withapproval in the leadin4 case ofAntamo5 Goldfields !ining Co. v. Court of $ndustrial%elations,&decided in #$+, e2plained clearly the need for the repudiation of the laisse6(fairedoctrine. Thus< /t should be observed at the outset that our Constitution was adopted in theidst of sur4in4 unrest and dissatisfaction resultin4 fro econoic and social distress which wasthreatenin4 the stability of 4overnents the world over. Alive to the social and econoic forces atwor:, the fraers of our Constitution boldly et the probles and difficulties which faced the andendeavored to crystalli6e, with ore or less fidelity, the political, social and econoic propositions oftheir a4e, and this they did, with the consciousness that the political and philosophical aphoris oftheir 4eneration will, in the lan4ua4e of a 4reat =urist, 8be doubted by the ne2t and perhaps entirely

discarded by the third.8 . . . Ebodyin4 the spirit of the present epoch, 4eneral provisions wereinserted in the Constitution which are intended to brin4 about the needed social and econoiceuilibriu between coponent eleents of society throu4h the application of what ay be teredas the=ustitia communis advocated by (rotius and )eibnits any years a4o to be secured throu4hthe counterbalancin4 of econoic and social forces and opportunities which should be re4ulated, ifnot controlled, by the 7tate or placed, as it were, in custodia societatis. 8The prootion of social

=ustice to insure the well*bein4 and econoic security of all the people8 was thus inserted as vitalprinciple in our Constitution. ... ./n the course of such concurrin4 opinion and after notin4 thechan4es that have ta:en place stressin4 that the policy of laisse6(fairehad indeed 4iven way to the


14/18

assuption by the 4overnent of the ri4ht to intervene althou4h ualified by the phrase to soee2tent, he ade clear that the doctrine in 1eople v. 1omarno lon4er retain, its virtuality as a livin4principle.&!

&. /t ust be ade clear that the ob=ection to the constituent*inistrant classification of4overnental functions is not to its forulation as such. 5ro the standpoint of law as lo4ic, it is not

without erit. /t has neatness and syetry. There are hardly any loose ends. /t has the virtue ofclarity. /t ay be said in its favor li:ewise that it reflects all*too*faithfully the laisse6(fairenotion that4overnent cannot e2tend its operation outside the aintenance of peace and order, protectiona4ainst e2ternal security, and the adinistration of =ustice, with private ri4hts, especially so in thecase of property, bein4 safe4uarded and a hint that the 4eneral welfare is not to be entirely i4nored.

/t ust not be lost si4ht of thou4h that lo4ic and =ural syetry while undoubtedly desirable are notthe prie consideration. This is especially so in the field of public law. 9hat was said by oles,alost nine decades a4o, carry 4reater conviction now. The life of the law has not been lo4ic> it hasbeen e2perience. The felt necessities of the tie, the prevalent oral and political theories, intuitionsof public policy avowed or unconscious, even the pre=udices which =ud4es share with their fellow*en, have had a 4ood deal ore to do than the syllo4is in deterinin4 the rules by which en

should be 4overned.

&&

Then too, there was the warnin4 of (eny cited by Cardo6o that undue stressor lo4ic ay result in confinin4 the entire syste of positive law, within a liited nuber of lo4icalcate4ories, predeterined in essence, iovable in basis, 4overned by infle2ible do4as, thusrenderin4 it incapable of respondin4 to the ever varied and chan4in4 e2i4encies of life.&+,

/t is cause enou4h for concern if the ob=ection to the Bacani decision were to be preised on thescore alone that perhaps there was fidelity to the reuireents of lo4ic and =ural syetry carried toe2cess. 9hat appears to e uch ore deplorable is that it did fail to reco4ni6e that there was arepudiation of the laisse6(faireconcept in the Constitution. As was set forth in the precedin4 pa4es,the Constitution is distin4uished precisely by a contrary philosophy. The re4ie of liberty if providedfor, with the reali6ation that under the then prevalent social and econoic conditions, it ay beattained only throu4h a 4overnent with its sphere of activity ran4in4 far and wide, not e2cludin4atters hitherto left to the operation of free enterprise. As ri4htfully stressed in our decision today in

line with what was earlier e2pressed by ;ustice )aurel, the 4overnent that we have established hasas a fundaental principle the prootion of social =ustice.&"The sae =urist 4ave it a coprehensiveand endurin4 definition as the prootion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the4overnent of easures calculated to insure econoic stability of all the coponent eleents ofsociety, throu4h the aintenance of a proper econoic and social euilibriu in the interrelations ofthe ebers of the counity, constitutionally, throu4h the adoption of easures le4ally =ustifiable,or e2tra*constitutionally, throu4h the e2ercise of powers underlyin4 the e2istence of all 4overnentsin the tie honored principle of salus populi estsuprema le4.&%

There is thus fro the sae distin4uished pen, this tie writin4 for the Court, a reiteration of theview of thelaisse6(fairedoctrine bein4 repu4nant to the fundaental law. /t ust be added thou4hthat the reference to e2tra*constitutional easures bein4 allowable ust be understood in the sense

that there is no infrin4eent of specific constitutional 4uarantees. 3therwise, the =udiciary will behard put to sustain their validity if challen4ed in an appropriate le4al proceedin4.

The re4ie of liberty conteplated in the Constitution with social =ustice as a fundaental principleto reinforce the pled4e in the preable of prootin4 the 4eneral welfare reflects traditional conceptsof a deocratic policy infused with an awareness of the vital and pressin4 need for the 4overnentto assue a uch ore active and vi4orous role in the conduct of public affairs. The fraers of ourfundaental law were as one in their stron4ly*held belief that thereby the 4rave and serious infiritythen confrontin4 our body*politic, on the whole still with us now, of 4reat ineuality of wealth and


15/18

ass poverty, with the 4reat bul: of our people ill*clad, ill*housed, ill*fed, could be reedied. Nothin4else than counal effort, assive in e2tent and earnestly en4a4ed in, would suffice.

To paraphrase )as:i, with the necessary odification in line with such worthy constitutional ends, weloo: upon the state as an or4ani6ation to proote the happiness of individuals, its authority as apower bound by subordination to that purpose, liberty while to be viewed ne4atively as absence of

restraint ipressed with a positive aspect as well to assure individual self*fulfillent in the attainentof which 4reater responsibility is thrust on 4overnent> and ri4hts as boundary ar:s definin4 areasoutside its doain.&15ro which it would follow as )as:i so aptly stated that it is the individual8shappiness and not its well*bein4 Ithat isJ the criterion by which its behavior IisJ to be =ud4ed. isinterests, and not its power, set the liits to the authority it IisJ entitled to e2ercise.&9e have undersuch a test enlar4ed its field of copetence. +. 9ith the decision reached by us today, the4overnent is freed fro the copulsion e2erted by the Bacani doctrine of the constituent*inistrant test as a criterion for the type of activity in which it ay en4a4e. /ts constrictin4 effect isconsi4ned to oblivion. No doubts or is4ivin4s need assail us that 4overnental efforts to prootethe public weal, whether throu4h re4ulatory le4islation of vast scope and aplitude or throu4h theunderta:in4 of business activities, would have to face a searchin4 and ri4orous scrutiny. /t is clearthat their le4itiacy cannot be challen4ed on the 4round alone of their bein4 offensive to theiplications of the laisse6(faireconcept. 0nless there be a repu4nancy then to the liitationse2pressly set forth in the Constitution to protect individual ri4hts, the 4overnent en=oys a uchwider latitude of action as to the eans it chooses to cope with 4rave social and econoic problesthat ur4ently press for solution. 5or e, at least, that is to anifest deference to the philosophy ofour fundaental law. ence y full concurrence, as announced at the outset.

". The opinion of ;ustice Ma:alintal contains this footnote< /t ust be stated, however, that we donot here decide the uestion D not at issue in this case D of whether or not a labor or4ani6ationcoposed eployees dischar4in4 4overnental functions, which is allowed under the le4alprovision =ust uoted, provided such or4ani6ation does not ipose the obli4ation to stri:e or to =oin instri:e, ay petition for a certification election and copel the eployer to bar4ain collectively with itfor purposes other than to secure chan4es or conditions in the ters and conditions of eployent.

9ith such an affiration as to the scope of our decision there bein4 no holdin4 on the ve2in4uestion of the effects on the ri4hts of labor in view of the conclusion reached that the functionen4a4ed in is 4overnental in character, / a in full a4reeent. The answer to such a vital ueryust await another day.

%oo"oe

#)and Authority, )and Ban:, A4ricultural Productivity Coission> 3ffice of the A4rarianCounsel.

!The )and Refor Pro=ect Adinistration is the or4ani6ation throu4h which the fieldoperations of eber a4encies 'of which the ACA is one- shall be underta:en by theirrespective personnel under a unified adinistration. '7ection ! of Article #, E2ecutive 3rderNo. 1"-

&7ection 1$ '@- of the Revised Adinistrative Code provides in part< The @epartent ead,upon the recoendation of the Chief of bureaus or office concerned, shall appoint all


16/18

subordinate officers and eployees whose appointent is not e2pressly vested by law in thePresident of the Philippines. . . . .

+Bacani vs. National Coconut Corporation, (.R. No. )*$%"1, Nov. !$, #$"%, "& 3.(. p. !.

"Malcol, The (overnent of the Philippines, pp. #$*!> Bacani vs. National Coconut

Corporation, supra.

%/t ust be stated, however, that we do not here decide the uestion D not at issue in thiscase D of whether or not a labor or4ani6ation coposed of eployees dischar4in44overnental functions, which is allowed under the le4al provision =ust uoted provided suchor4ani6ation does not ipose the obli4ation to stri:e or to =oin in stri:e, ay petition for acertification election and copel the eployer to bar4ain collectively with it for purposesother than to secure chan4es or odifications in the ters and conditions of theireployent. 9ithal, it ay not be aiss to observe, albeit obiter, that the ri4ht to or4ani6ethus allowed would be eanin4less unless there is a correlative ri4ht on the part of theor4ani6ation to be reco4ni6ed as the proper representative of the eployees and to bar4ainin their behalf in relation to atters outside the liitations iposed by the statute, such as

those provided for in 7ection ! 'b- of Republic Act No. !!%, concernin4 coplaints and4rievances of the eployees.

1Reenacted in 7ec. ! 'c- of the Civil 7ervice Act of #$"$, R.A. No. !!%.

%ERNANO, /.,C3NC0RR/N( (7/7 v.Castillo, $ Phil. 1% '#$"%-> Price 7tabili6ation Corp., #! Phil. "#" '#$"1-> Boy 7couts ofPhil. v. Araos, #! Phil. # '#$"-> Naric 9or:er8s 0nion v. Alvendia, #1 Phil. ++ '#$%->(7/7 Eployees Asso. v. Alvendia, )*#"%#+, May &, #$%> National @ev. Co. v. Tobias, 17CRA %$! '#$%&-> 777 Eployees Asso. v. 7oriano, 1 7CRA ##% '#$%&-> PA) Eployees8

Asso. v. Phil. Airlines, /nc., ## 7CRA &1 '#$%+-> Nawasa v. N97A Consolidated 0nions, ##7CRA 1%% '#$%+-> Phil. Mf4. Co. v. Manila Port 7ervice, #% 7CRA $" '#$%%- and Phil. Postal7avin4s Ban: v. Court, !# 7CRA #&& '#$%1-.

!# Phil. +% '#$"%-.

&$&id., p. +1!.

+$&id.

"Malcol, The (overnent of Philippine /slands.

%The Constitutional Position of the Property 3wner in ! 7elected Essays on Constitutional)aw, p. ! '#$&-.


17/18

1Cardo6o, The Nature of ;udicial Process, p. 11 '#$!#-.

#$ 07 +" '#$"-.

$! 07 +#!.

#!+& 07 +!%.

##!%# 0s "!". A4ain there was a vi4orous dissent fro oles.

#!& 07 &1$.

#&!%! 07 "!!.

#+!$# 07 "!.

#";ac:son, 7tru44le for ;udicial 7upreacy, p. 1+, '#$+#-.

#%!+ 5ed. %#& '#$!!-.

#1As was stated in the above wor: of ;ac:son< But in =ust three years, be4innin4 with the3ctober #$&& ter, the Court refused to reco4ni6e the power of Con4ress in twelve cases.5ive of these twelve decisions occurred durin4 a sin4le year< that is, the 3ctober #$&" ter>four of the five, by a sharply divided court. ;ac:son, op. cit. p. +#..

#! 7elected Essays on Constitutional )aw, op, cit., p. !1.

#$$ 07 %!+.

!

&$ Phil. %%, 1#1*1#.

!#" Phil. !"$.

!!+% Phil. ++.

!&!%# 07 "!".

!+/// Proceedin4s of the Philippine Constitutional Convention, )aurel ed., pp. #1&*#1+ '#$%%-.

!"$&id., pp. #11*#1.

!%$&id., p. #1.

!1Cf. $&id., pp. !!1*!!. To uote fro @ele4ate Pala< 0no de los principiosconstitucionales es el referente a la liitacion de la propiedad individual. Por ue se va aliitar la aduisicion de la propiedad. Ese es otro de los pre=uicios y preocupaciones ueteneos nosotros, cuando en realidad el undo esta sufiendo actualente por causa de lasteorias anti4uas sobre la propiedad. Ha he dicho aui, o no se si en otra parte, ue la nocionactual sobre propiedad es la vinculacion perpetua de todos los bienes ue se puedenacuular por una failia, hasta el ultio de sus as reotos descendientes, ha producido


18/18

ese enore desnivel de riue6a ue se nota en todas partes del undo, la e2trea iseriaal lado del e2treo lu=o. 0na docena de enores illonarios, al lado de illones y illonesde seres desprovistos de lo as eleental y rudientario, para satisfacer las necesidadesordinarias. H ueK Gaos a peranecer indiferentes antes ue ante nuestra propiasituacionK ablaos tanto de deocracia, de prosperidad para el 4ran nuero haceosal4o a favor de ese 4ran nuero ue constituye la fuer6a de la nacionK No vaos siuiera a

dedicar un oento de nuestra atencion a la 4ran in=usticia social ue supone el resultadode una e2trea iseria y de un lu=o e2treoK 5ue enry (eor4e el priero ue llao laatencion del undo sobre este problea. Toda la bendicion de nuestra civili6acion, lasenores conuistas ue el undo ha reali6ado en el orden cientifico, han tendidosolaente a producir la felicidad de unos pocos y la iseria de las 4randes uchedubres.Creo ue este problea es di4no de atencion en todas partes del undo, y a enos uenosotros pon4aos las edidas ue han de ata=ar los peli4ros de futuro, nuestra sociedadestara siepre su=eta a las alaras ue puedan producir las uchedubres habrientas ydeseosas de su propio bienestar.

!$&id., pp. !$&*!$+.

!$

$&id., /, )aurel ed., pp. +1#*+1!.

&1 Phil. &+.

$&id., pp. &"%*&"1.

&!$&id., p. &%.

&&oles, The Coon )aw, p. # '##-.

&+Cardo6o, op. cit., p. +1.

&"

Art. //, 7ec. ", Constitution.

&%Calalan4 v. 9illias, 1 Phil. 1!%, 1&+*1&" '#$+-.

&1)as:i, The 7tate in Theory and Practice, p. &" '#$&"-.

&$&id., at p. &%.

Consti Case (Accfa vs Cugco) Full Case

Documents

Transcript of Consti Case (Accfa vs Cugco) Full Case