ANTECEDENT:The respondentsfromtheAngatRiver IrrigationSystem Workers'Union(PLUM)fileda

complaintagainst theAngat RiverIrrigation Systemand its supervising engineerforan allegedunfairlabor

practices by interfering withtherespondent'srighttoselforganization in regardtohire and tenureoftheir
employment in order to discourage them from pursuing the union activities and by refusing to bargain
collectivelywiththerepresentativesoftheemployees.

These two (2) cases are interrelated. Case G.R. No. L10943 involves a complaint against the
AngatRiver IrrigationSystem anditsSupervisingProjectEngineer,VicenteR.Cruz,for allegedunfairlabor
practices. It was filed with the Court of Industrial Relations, on or about January 5, 1956, by an acting
prosecutor of said Court, onbehalf of the RiverWorkers' Union(PLUM),alegitimatelabororganization,the
members of which are employeesofsaid System. Said complaint was docketed asCase No. 814ULPof
saidCourt. Case G.R. No. L10944referstoa petitionfiled,bythesame labororganization,withsaidCourt,
on January 9, 1956, and docketed therein as Case No. 313MC, forcertification of said unionas thesole
andexclusivecollectivebargainingrepresentativeoftheemployeesintheaforementionedSystem.

Upon beingrequired toanswerthecomplaintinthefirstcase,therespondentsthereinfiledamotion

todismiss upon the groundoflack ofjurisdiction,becausetheAngatRiverIrrigation Systemisallegedly"an
entity under the Bureau of Public Works, DepartmentofPublic WorksandCommunications,"andtheState
cannot be suedwithoutitsconsent.TheSystem,likewise,opposedthecertificationprayedforinthesecond
case, forthesamereason.Inboth cases,thesystemfiledmanifestationscontainingargumentsinsupportof
the motion todismiss andthe opposition to the petition for certification.Soon,thereafter,byanorderdated
June 29, 1956, the Court of Industrial Relations deferred the resolution of the motion to dismiss "until
presentation of evidence of the parties"anddirected"the respondentto fileitsanswerinthetwo(2)cases"
within five (5) days from notice. A reconsideration of this order having been denied, the System and its
supervisingprojectengineer instituted the presentspecial civilactions forprohibition,againstthesaidlabor
organizationand the Court of IndustrialRelations.Uponthefilingof the requisitebond, weissued awritof
preliminary injunction restraining the CourtofIndustrialRelationsfromrequiringpetitionersherein toanswer
thecomplaintandtoentertrialinsaidcases,untilfurtherordersfromthisCourt.

The respondentsfileda motion todismissthecase,arguingthattheARISbeinganentityunderthe

Bureau of Public Works, whichis aninstrumentality of the Government, has nojuridical personalitytosue
andbesued.

ISSUE:

a.
b.
c.

HELD:

W/Nthegovernmentemployeesmayvalidlyorganizethemselvesintoaunion.
W/Nthegovernmentmayvalidlyenterintocollectivebargainingagreementswithsaidunion.
W/N the Court ofIndustrialRelationsacquiredjurisdiction over the person of defendants in Cases
Nos.814ULPand313MCofthatCourt.

No. Theterms andconditionsofemploymentintheGovernment,includinganypoliticalsubdivision

or instrumentality thereof, are governed by law and it is declared tobe the policyof thisAct that
employeesthereinshall not strike forthepurposeof securingchangesor modificationintheterms
and conditions of employment. Such employeesmay belong to any labor organization which does
not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike Provided, however, That this section shall
apply only to employees employed in governmental functions and not to those employed in
proprietaryfunctionsoftheGovernmentincludingbutnotlimitedtogovernmentalcorporations.

a.

b.

No. RepublicAct No.875 exemptstheGovernmentfromtheoperation ofitsprovisionon2 collective

bargaining because conditions of employment in the government service can no longer be the
subjectofagreementsorcontractsbetweentheemployerandtheemployed.

c.

No. It isobviousthattheCourtofIndustrialRelationsdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthepersonsof
herein petitioners and thus devoid cognizance of the cases at bar. the orders appealed from
requiring petitioners inbothcasestoanswerthepetitionandtoentertrialincasesNos. 313MCand
914ULPoftherespondentCourt,isherebysetasideandsaidcasesaredismissed.

Section11oftheIndustrialPeaceAct(Rep.ActNo.875)PROHIBITIONAGAINSTSTRIKESINTHEGOVERNMENT
Aprocedurelookingtowardmakingofcollectiveagreementsbetweenemployerandaccreditedrepresentativesof
employeesconcerningwages,hours,andotherconditionsofemployment,andrequiresthatpartiesdealwitheach
otherwithopenandfairmindsandsincerelyendeavortoovercomeobstaclesexistingbetweenthemtotheendthat
employmentrelationsmaybestabilizedandobstructiontofreeflowofcommerceprevented.
2