CASE DIGEST

(LSLAJA)

ACCFA V. CUGCO

Facts:

Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA), a government agency created under RA 821, as amended was reorganized and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under RA 3844 or Land Reform Code. A collective Bargaining Agreement was agreed upon between ACCFA and the labor unions ASA (ACCFA Supervisor’s Association) & AWA (ACCFA Workers’ Association which was supposed to be effective for one year beginning July 1, 1961. Due to non-implementation of the CBA, the unions held a strike. Five days later, the unions with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporation and Offices (CUGCO) filed a complaint against ACCFA before the CIR on the ground of alleged acts of unfair labor practices, violation of the CBA in order to discourage the members of unions in the exercise of their right to self organization, discrimination against said members in the matter of promotion and refusal to bargain.

ACCFA moved for reconsideration. But while the appeal was pending, RA 3844 was passed into law and effectively changed ACCFA into ACA. ASA and AWA then petitioned that they obtained sole bargaining rights with ACA. While the petition was not yet decided upon, EO 75 was also passed which placed ACA under Land Reform Project Administration. Notwithstanding the latest legislation passed, Trial Court & Appellate Court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA. ACA challenged the jurisdiction of CIR to entertain the petition of the unions for certification elections on the ground that it is performing a governmental function. The unions join the issue on this single point contending that ACA is performing a proprietary function.

ISSUE:

WON ACA is a government Entity

HELD:

There can be no dispute as to the fact that Land Reform Program contemplated in the said code is beyond the capabilities of any private enterprise to translate to reality. It is purely a governmental function no less than the establishment of public schools and hospitals. The growing complexities of modern society have rendered the classification of the governmental functions unrealistic, if not obsolete. Ministrant and governmental function continue to lose their well defined boundaries and are absorbed within the activities that government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times and move towards a greater socialization of economic force.

GR No. L-31890 May 29, 1987

PHHC VS CIR

Facts:

In 1967, through the agreement entered into between the Philippine Government & World Food Program, People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation proposed a self help project to be undertaken for the families of squatters in Sapang Palay engaging them to work in the construction of two earth dams. World Food Program has been asked to supply the food for basic ration of 500 settlers participating in this scheme and their 2000 dependents for a period of 560 days. The food ration will supplement a cash incentive of 0.50 peso per participant per day. Although, participants were assigned to work on canals & roads, the projects were never fully implemented. Complaining about their work and compensation, the participant brought the matter to Dept. of Labor. Thereafter, PHHC suspended work. Participants then instituted an action with the CIR against PHHC praying for the payment of difference between minimum wage and 0.50 paid to them, overtime and reinstatement. In its answer, PHHC claimed that it was exercising a governmental functions; that it did not employ private respondents; CIR had no jurisdiction over PHHC and over the subject matter of action.

ISSUE:

WON CIR has jurisdiction over PHHC, a government owned and controlled corporation performing governmental function

Held:

PHHC, as it was established as an instrumentality of the government to accomplished governmental policies and objectives and extend essential services to the people, performs a governmental and not proprietary function. It is thus comes under the jurisdiction of civil service commission and not DOLE. CIR has jurisdiction over labor disputes involving GOCC performing basically proprietary function but not those performing governmental function.

GR No. L-55963 February 27, 1991

Sps. Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla vs Hon. Maliaman

Facts:

On December 1, 1989, the court rendered a decision declaring NIA, a government agency performing proprietary functions Like an ordinary employer, NIA was held liable for the injuries resulting in death of Francisco Fontanilla, son of the petitioners Sps. Fontanilla, caused by the fault and/or negligence of NIA’s driver employee Hugo Garcia. NIA, however maintains that it does not perform solely and primarily proprietary functions, but is an agency the government tasked with government functions, and is therefore not liable for the tortuous act of its driver who was not its special agent.

ISSUE:

WON NIA is a government agency with juridical personality separate and distinct from the Government

Held:

Yes. NIA was not created for purposes of local government. While it may be true that NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does not make NIA essentially and purely a government function corporation. NIA was created for the purpose of constructing, improving, rehabilitating, and administering all irrigation system in the Philippines, including all communal and pump irrigation projects. Certainly, the state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders, but the functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency which is the irrigation of lands.

NIA is a government agency, invested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government, thus is governed by the corporation law. It is not mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary function. Therefore, it may be held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent.

the lot located within the US Naval base.