Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. Nos. L-10943 and L-10944December !" 19#$T%E &NG&T R'(ER 'RR'G&T'ON S)STEM and ('CENTE R. CRU*" S+,er-.s.n/ Pro0ec1 En/.neer" petitioners, vs.&NG&T R'(ER 2OR3ERS4 UN'ON 5PLUM6 and T%E COURT O7 'NDUSTR'&L REL&T'ONS" respondents.Asst. Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Rafael P. Caniza for petitioners.Arsenio H. Adriano for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.Vicente A. Rafael for respondent union. 7EL'8" J.:The Angat River Irrigation !ste" is a #ivision or ection of the Bureau of Public $or%s engaged in the "aintenance and operation of irrigation s!ste"s in Bulacan and nearb! provinces, the appropriation for &hich pro'ect is included in the !earl! (eneral Appropriations Act being passed b! Congress.Case G.R. No. L-1!"#.)*n +anuar! ,, -.,/, the Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations filed on behalf of the Angat River Irrigation !ste" $or%ers0 1nion 2P31M4, &hose "e"bers &ere actuall! e"plo!ed in said pro'ect, a co"plaint &ith said Court, doc%eted as Case No.5-6713P, "a%ing the Angat River Irrigation !ste" and its supervising engineer as part! respondents. The co"plaint alleged, a"ong other things, that respondents co""itted unfair labor practices b! interfering &ith, restraining or coercing the e"plo!ees in the e8ercise of the latter0s right to self7organi9ation: b! practicing discri"ination in the hiring or tenure of e"plo!"ent of said e"plo!ees in order to discourage"ent of said e"plo!ees in order to discourage "e"bership &ith the union, and b! refusing to bargain collectivel! &ith the representatives of the e"plo!ees. As basisfor the co"plaint stated that on August ;, -.,,, the union presented a state"ent of proposals to the e"plo!ee consisting of -, de"ands. As the latter failed to act on the sa"e, the union president sent a letter to the supervising engineer and also sa& hi" personall! for the purpose of in., -.,/, deferred action on this "otion to dis"iss until after the presentation of evidence b! the parties and directed therein respondents to file their ans&er in , da!s. As the "otion filed b! respondents to reconsider said order &as denied b! the Court on the alleged ground that the order &as Binterlocutor!B in nature, Angat River Irrigation !ste" and its supervising engineer instituted this action for prohibition and in accordance &ith their pra!er, this Court issued a &rit of preli"inar! 'unction restraining the Industrial Court fro" enforcing its order of +une >., -.,/, in Case No. 5-6713P and fro" proceeding &ith the hearing of Case No. ;-;7MC, upon the filing b! petitioners of a bond for P>??.??.Asserting that the Angat River Irrigation !ste", as an agenc! of the (overn"ent is i""une fro" suit, /7/>C of Republic -.,/7-.,C4 under the pecial =und covering the National Irrigation !ste" andon p. />, of the -.,C7-.,5 Budget, Republic Act No. -5??, an ite"i9ed appropriation for the salariesand &ages of positions in said s!ste", in the sa"e "anner as the ite"i9ed appropriations for the pa!"ent of salaries and &ages of officials and e"plo!ees of the Bureau of Public $or%s. Conse>C?4.In its govern"ental or public character, the corporation is "ade b! the state, one of its instru"ents, or the local depositor! of certain li"ited and prescribed political po&ers, to be good in behalf of the estate rather thanfor itself. But its proprietar! or private character, the theor! is that the po&ers are supposed not to be conferred pri"aril! or chiefl! fro" considerations connected &ith the govern"ent of the estate at large, but for the private advantage of the co"pact co""unit! &hich is incorporated as a distinct legal personalit! or corporate individual: and as to such po&ers, and to propert! acC4.The distinction bet&een acts in the perfor"ance of a govern"ental function and those in the perfor"ance of a corporate or proprietar! function is that in the case of the for"er, the "unicipal corporation is e8ecuting the legislative "andate &ith respect to a public dut! generall!, &hile in the other, it is e8ercising its private rights as a corporate bod! 23oeb vs. +ac%sonville, -?- =la. 6>., /. A3R 6,.4.In the light of the authorities aforecited, the Angat River Irrigation !ste" un"ista%abl! e8ercises govern"ental functions, not onl! because it falls under the direct supervision of the President of the Philippines through the #epart"ent of Public $or%s in virtue of Co""on&ealth Act No. 5C giving thePresident authorit! to ad"inister the irrigation s!ste"s constructed b! the (overn"ent pursuant to Act >-,>, as a"ended, but also because the nature of the duties i"posed on said agenc! and perfor"ed b! it does not reveal that it &as intended to bring to the (overn"ent an! special corporate benefit or pecuniar! profit. =urther"ore, the Irrrigation Act 2No. >-,>4, as does not create or establish irrigation s!ste"s for the private advantage of the (overn"ent, but pri"aril! and chiefl! for considerations connected &ith the general &elfare of the people: and in so far as the deter"ination of clai"s for the appropriation of public &aters is concerned, the Irrigation Act places the #irector of Public $or%s on ed -5/: -56 3. Ed. ,-.)-.6?4, but our la& contains no specific provision e8e"pting the (overn"ent fro" the ordinar! acceptation of the &ord Be"plo!erB. Not&ithstanding this o"ission, $e believe that if it &ere the intent of the la& to relegate the (overn"ent to the position of an ordinar! e"plo!er and e?, 1.. ;6., ,- 3. Ed. 5;64. +ust li%e an! other privilege or right, this i""unit! "a! be &aived and the (overn"ent can be brought in as a part! defendant onl! in thoses cases &herein it e8pressl! consents to be sued, as in the case of "one!ed clai" arising fro" contract &hich could be the basis of civil action bet&een private parties 2ec. -, Act ;?5;4.There can be no argu"ent on the point that although not the (overn"ent itself, this privilege of non7suabilit! of the (overn"ent e8tends to the Angat River Irrigation !ste", it being an entit! of the for"er. And this islogical, because an! suit, action or proceeding against an agenc! of the govern"ent &ould in practice be a suit, action or proceeding against the (overn"ent itself, of &hich said agenc! is a "ere office 2Metropolitan Transportation ervice 2METRAN4 vs. Paredes et al., C. Phil. 5-.: 6, *ff. (a9., No. C, p, >5;,. The rationale for this principle of (overn"ent i""unit! fro" suit is laid do&n in the sa"e case of METRAN vs. Paredes, supra, &hen this Court fittiingl! saidAIn a republican state, li%e the Philippines, govern"ent i""unit! fro" suit &ithout its consent is derived fro" the &ill of the people, the"selves in freel! creating a govern"ent of the people, b! the people, and for the people )a representative govern"ent through &hich the!have agreed to e8ercise the po&ers and discharge the duties of their sovereignt! for the co""on good and and general &elfare. In so agreeing, the citi9ens have sole"nl! under ta%en to surrender so"e of their private rights and interests &hich &ere calculated to conflict &ith the higher rights and large interests of the people as a &hole, represented b! the govern"ent thus established b! the" all. *ne of those 0higher rights0, based upon those 0larger interest0 is that govern"enti""unit!. The "e"bers of the respondent 3abor 1nion the"selves are part of the people &ho have freel! for"ed that govern"ent and participated, in that sole"n underta%ing. In this sense)and a ver! real one it is)the! are in effect atte"pting to sue t&e+sel$es along &ith the rest of the people represented b! their co""on govern"ent)an ano"alous and absurd situation indeed.As onl! natural or 'uridical persons "a! be parties in an action 2ec. -, Rule ;, Rules of Court4 and as the Angat River Irrigation !ste", as an agenc! of the (overn"ent, cannot be sued &ithout its consent "uch less overits ob'ection, it is obvious that the Court of Industrial Relations did not ac-,> governs the appropriation of the Bpublic &atersB of the Philippines. Pursuant to section - of Article MIII of the Constitution, such &aters B(elon, to the tate.B In other &ords, the title of the tate to said &aters is that of o'ner thereof. As such, the authorit! of the tate to dispose of said &aters and to regulate the appropriation thereof fro" its sovereignt!, but fro" its do+inical rights. Conse5, Te8. Civ. App.L -; . $. K>dL >?6.4 2E"phasis ours.4.Thus, in Metropolitan $ater #istrict vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 2.- Phil., 56?4 this Court, spea%ing through Chief +ustice Paras, &ith the concurrence of +ustices Pablo, Beng9on, Padilla, Bautista Angelo and 3abrador, heldA. . . there is authorit! to the effect that in deter"ining the 'urisdiction of labor courts, the ter" 0industrial relation0 refers 0to affairs relating to industr! and involving govern"ent depart"entsdevoted to public service.0 2tate is. Do&at. -.5 Pac. /5/, /.;.4 T&e (usiness of pro$idin, 'ater suppl) and se'era,e ser$ice +a) for all practical purposes (e li0ened to t&e industr) en,a,ed () coal co+panies% ,as co+panies% po'er plants% ice plants% and t&e li0e. 2E"phasis ours.4.The "a'orit! opnion declares, in effect, that petitioners herein are not the Breal parties in interests:B that the Angat River Irrigation !ste" has no personalit! to sue: and that, in lieu of said !ste", respondent 3abor 1nion should have directed its action against the tate, &hich cannot be sued, ho&ever, &ithout its consent. I cannot see "! &a! clear to adhering to this vie&, for the follo&ing reasons, na"el!A-. The records do not sho&, as !et, the status of the Angat River Irrigation !ste". As above stated not even petitioners herein allege that it is part of the (overn"ent. That is &h! the lo&er court &as 'ustified in not passing upon this . The certification case is not a suit against an!bod!. Neither the !ste" nor its supervising pro'ect engineer has been na"ed as respondents, in the petition for certification. aid s!ste" and the afore"entioned officer sought to intervene therein of their o&n volition and free &ill.A 0certification proceeding0 is not a 1liti,ation1 in the sense that the latter ter" is co""onl! understood but a "ere investigation of a non7adversar!, fact7finding character in &hich agenc! pla!s the part of a disinterested investigator see%ing "erel! to ascertain the desires of the e"plo!ees as to the "atter of their representation. . . 2The 3a& (overning 3abor #isputes in the Philippines, =ransisco, ;rd ed., Fol. I, p. 6,C: e"phasis ours.4.Indeed, section ->2b4 of Republic Act No. 5C,, providesA$henever a