Pampanga electric coop vs nlrc

-pag allot sa lang og 2 pages kay wala pa ko

kasearch ani

PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs

National Labor Relations Commission
In June 1985, Danilo Mercado was dismissed by PNOC-Energy Development Corporation
(PNOC-EDC) due to serious acts of dishonesty allegedly committed by Mercado. Mercado then
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PNOC-EDC. PNOC-EDC filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that the Labor arbiter and/or the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
has no jurisdiction over PNOC-EDC because it is a subsidiary of the Philippine National Oil
Company (PNOC), a government owned or controlled corporation, and as a subsidiary, it is also
a GOCC and as such, the proper forum for Mercado’s suit is the Civil Service Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not PBOC-EDC is correct.

HELD: No. The issue in this case has been decided already in the case of PNOC-EDC vs
Leogardo. It is true that PNOC is a GOCC and that PNOC-EDC, being a subsidiary of PNOC, is
likewise a GOCC. It is also true that under the 1973 Constitution, all GOCCs are under the
jurisdiction of the CSC. However, the 1987 Constitution change all this as it now provides:

The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters. (Article IX-B, Section 2 [1]) [emphasis supplied]

Hence, the above provision sets the rule that the mere fact that a corporation is a GOCC does not
automatically place it under the CSC. Under this provision, the test in determining whether a
GOCC is subject to the Civil Service Law is the manner of its creation such that government
corporations created by special charter are subject to its provisions while those incorporated
under the general Corporation Law are not within its coverage.

In the case at bar, PNOC-EDC, even though it is a GOCC, was incorporated under the general
Corporation Law – it does not have its own charter, hence, it is under the jurisdiction of the
MOLE.
Even though the facts of this case occurred while the 1973 Constitution was still in force, the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution regarding the legal matters [procedural aspect] are applicable
because it is the law in force at the time of the decision.

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA), DIONISION T. BAYLON, RAMON

MODESTO, JUANITO MADURA, REUBEN ZAMORA, VIRGILIO DE ALDAY, SERGIO ARANETA, PLACIDO
AGUSTIN, VIRGILIO MAGPAYO, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), HON. CEZAR C. PERALEJO, RTC, BRANCH 98,
QUEZON CITY, respondents.

G.R. No. 85279

July 28, 1989

Facts:

On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners, alleging that on June 9, 1987, the
officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike and baricaded the entrances to the SSS Building,
preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS members from transacting business
with the SSS; that the strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor - Management Council, which
ordered the strikers to return to work; that the strikers refused to return to work; and that the SSS
suffered damages as a result of the strike. The complaint prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be
issued to enjoin the strike and that the strikers be ordered to return to work; that the defendants
(petitioners herein) be ordered to pay damages; and that the strike be declared illegal.

It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union's demands, which
included: implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
on check-off of union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay;
conversion of temporary or contractual employees with six (6) months or more of service into regular
and permanent employees and their entitlement to the same salaries, allowances and benefits given to
other regular employees of the SSS; and payment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and after the
SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts of
discrimination and unfair labor practices.

Issue:

Whether or not employees of the Social Security System (SSS) have the right to strike.

Held:
The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, provides that the State "shall
guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. 31].
Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law becomes helpful in understanding the meaning of
these provisions. A reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987
Constitution would show that in recognizing the right of government employees to organize, the
commissioners intended to limit the right to the formation of unions or associations only, without
including the right to strike.

Considering that under the 1987 Constitution "the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters" [Art. IX(B), Sec. .2(l) see also Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the
employees in the civil service are denominated as "government employees"] and that the SSS is one
such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created under R.A. No.
1161, its employees are part of the civil service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870 & 70295, November
24,1988] and are covered by the Civil Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. This being
the case, the strike staged by the employees of the SSS was illegal.