Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Case under the functions of Government: the ministrant and constituent functions.

Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) vs. Confederation of Unions in
Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO)
30 SCRA, 649
Or in the book of Isagani Cruz ACCFA vs. Federated Labor Unions (FLU)
G.R. No. L-21484 November 29, 1969
1. ACCFA, a government agency created under RA 821, as amended was reorganized and its name changed to
Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the RA 3844 or Land Reform Code. While ACCFA
Supervisors' Association (ASA) and the ACCFA Workers' Association (AWA), are labor organizations (the
Unions) composed of the supervisors and the rank-and-file employees in the ACCFA.
2. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was agreed upon by labor unions (ASA and AWA) and ACCFA.
The said CBA was supposed to be effective on 1 July 1962. Due to non-implementation of the CBA the
unions held a strike. And 5 days later, the Unions, with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in
Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint against ACCFA before the Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR) on ground of alleged acts of unfair labor practices; violation of the collective
bargaining agreement in order to discourage the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to selforganization, discrimination against said members in the matter of promotions and refusal to bargain.
3. ACCFA moved for reconsideration but while the appeal was pending, RA 3844 was passed which
effectively turned ACCFA to ACA. Then, ASA and AWA petitioned that they obtain sole bargaining rights
with ACA. While this petition was not yet decided upon, EO 75 was also passed which placed ACA under
the Land Reform Project Administration. Notwithstanding the latest legislation passed, the trial court and
the appellate court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA.
ISSUE: Whether or not ACA is a government entity.
RULING: YES. It was in furtherance of such policy that the Land Reform Code was enacted and the various
agencies, the ACA among them, established to carry out its purposes. There can be no dispute as to the fact that the
land reform program contemplated in the said Code is beyond the capabilities of any private enterprise to translate
into reality. It is a purely governmental function, no less than, the establishment and maintenance of public schools
and public hospitals. And when, aside from the governmental objectives of the ACA, geared as they are to the
implementation of the land reform program of the State, the law itself declares that the ACA is a government office,
with the formulation of policies, plans and programs vested no longer in a Board of Governors, as in the case of the
ACCFA, but in the National Land Reform Council, itself a government instrumentality; and that its personnel are
subject to Civil Service laws and to rules of standardization with respect to positions and salaries, any vestige of
doubt as to the governmental character of its functions disappears.
The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification of the functions
of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and
initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only "because it was better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals," continue to lose their welldefined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity
if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is
undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned,
indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the
promotion of social justice.
The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO 75 placed ACA under the LRPA and by virtue of RA 3844 the
implementation of the Land Reform Program of the government is a governmental function NOT a proprietary
function. Being such, ACA can no longer step down to deal privately with said unions as it may have been doing
when it was still ACCFA. However, the growing complexities of modern society have rendered the classification of
the governmental functions as unrealistic, if not obsolete. Ministerial and governmental functions continue to lose
their well-defined boundaries and are absorbed within the activities that the government must undertake in its

sovereign capacity if it to meet the increasing social challenges of the times and move towards a greater
socialization of economic forces.
As per understanding of the case:
Both kinds of government functions in the modern society is not any realistic because of the laissez faire approach.
Thus, nowadays GOCCs or Government Owned Controlled Corporations are present having its function as
constituent and ministrant. To our Supreme Court the distinction between constituent and ministrant functions is not
relevant in our jurisdiction.
G.R. No. L-32052
65 SCRA 416
July 25, 1975
Petitioner: Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration
Respondent: Court of Industrial Relations
FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition seeking relief for their alleged overtime services (in excess of their 8
regular hours a day) and the failure to pay for said compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444.
Section 1: The legal working day for any person employed by another shall not be of more than eight (8) hours

Petitioner denies allegations for lack of a cause of action and jurisdiction.

Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari on grounds that the corporation is exercising governmental functions and
is therefore exempt from CA No. 444 which was denied and dismissed by RTC and CA. Motion for Reconsideration
were also DENIED.
ISSUE: Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental and not proprietary functions and is exempt from CA No.
HELD: It is an inherent state function which makes government required to support its people and promote their
general welfare. This case explains and portrays the expanded role of government necessitated by the increased
responsibility to provide for the general welfare.
The Court held that the distinction and between constituent and ministrant functions, which the Chief Justice points
out, is already irrelevant considering the needs of the present time. He says that "The growing complexities of
modern society have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government obsolete." The distinction

between constituent and ministrant functions is now considered obsolete. The Court affirms that the Petition as well
as the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED.