Bliss Development Corp.

Employees Union–SDM v Calleja

BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION (BDCEU)-SENTRO NG DEMOKRATIKONG MANGGAGAWA
(SDM), petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER CALLEJA and BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

Facts:
On October 10, 1986, petitioner, a duly registered labor union, filed with the Department of
Labor, National Capital Region, a petition for certification election of private respondent Bliss
Development Corporation (BDC), a government-owned corporation without charter.
Based on the position papers submitted by the parties, Labor Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando
dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the majority of the stocks of
petitioner’s employer, Bliss Development Corporation, (BDC) is owned by the Human
Settlement Development Corporation (HSDC), a wholly-owned government corporation.
Therefore, according to the Med-Arbiter, BDC as itself a government-owned corporation, is
subject to Civil Service law, rules and regulations and not of the Labor Code. BDC’s employees
therefore, are prohibited to join or form labor organizations. Furthermore, the Med-Arbiter
dismissed the subject matter at hand for being outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Department.
In the meantime, Executive Order No. 180 was issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino.
According to the EO, it applied to “all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.”
The EO extended to such government employees the right to organize and bargain collectively.
As a result, petitioner’s appeal to the Director of Bureau of Labor Relations with regard to the
Med-Arbiter’s decision was further dismissed, with the direction to register their labor
organization under Executive Order No. 180, instead of pursuant to the Labor Code.
Petitioner in the instant case argues against the order to register their labor organization under the
EO 180.

Issues:
Whether or not Bliss Development Corporation is a government-owned or controlled corporation
whose employees are governed by the Civil Service law (and resultantly, Executive Order 180,
raised in the case), instead of the Labor Code

Ruling:
The Bliss Development Corporation (BDC) is a government-owned or controlled corporation
that is governed by the Labor Code and not the Civil Service law.
It is a government-owned corporation by reason of its stocks being held in the majority by the
Human Settlement Development Ministry (HSDC), a wholly-owned government corporation.
This classification is pursuant to the definition of a government-owned or controlled corporation
made by P.D. 2029, which states that, “A government-owned or controlled corporation is a stock
or non-stock corporation whether performing government or proprietary functions, which is
directly chartered by special law or if organized under the general corporation law is owned or
controlled by the government or subsidiary corporation, to the extent of at least a majority of its
outstanding capital stock or of its outstanding voting stock.”
At the same time, BDC is a GOCC governed by the Labor Code instead of the Civil Service law.
Contrary to Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando’s assertion that every GOCC is covered by the
Civil Service law, the change in pertinent provisions from the 1973 Constitution regarding
GOCCs to the 1987 Constitution provisions concerning the same illustrate that instead of:
“The civil service embracing every branch, agency, subdivision, and
instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or
controlled corporation,” (1973 Constitution)
The civil service now embraces only. . .
“All branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter.”
(1987 Constitution)
It is well-noted that BDC is a government-owned corporation, created under the Corporation
Law, without a charter, and as such, is not embraced by the Civil Service law.
Furthermore, Executive Order No. 180 was also erroneously cited by the Director of Bureau of
Labor Relations as covering the BDC. The EO, similar to the definitions made by the 1987
Constitution, only covers GOCCs with original charter.