19. REPUBLIC VS.

CA The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch LII, dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, the petitioner’s complaint in Civil Case No. 88-44048 praying for
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED a declaration of illegality of the strike of the private respondents and to
Republic vs. Court of Appeals restrain the same. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s petition for
G.R. No. 87676. December 20, 1989.* certiorari, hence, this petition for review.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the NATIONAL The key issue in this case is whether the petitioner, National Parks
PARKS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT Development Committee (NPDC), is a government agency, or a private
OF APPEALS and THE NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT corporation, for on this issue depends the right of its employees to strike.
SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION & THEIR MEMBERS, respondents. This issue came about because although the NPDC was originally
Administrative Law;  National Parks Development Committee, an created in 1963 under Executive Order No. 30, as the Executive Committee
agency of the government, not a government-owned or controlled for the development of the Quezon Memorial, Luneta and other national
corporation.—In Jesus P. Perlas, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. parks, and later renamed as the National Parks Development Committee
84637-39, August 2, 1989, we ruled that the NPDC is an agency of the under Executive Order No. 68, on September 21, 1967, it was registered in
government, not a government-owned or controlled corporation, hence, the the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a non-stock and
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over its acting director who committed 430
estafa. 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same;  Same; Civil Service;  The Committee is a government Republic vs. Court of Appeals
agency, and its employees are covered by civil service rules and regulations. non-profit corporation, known as “The National Parks Development
—Since Committee, Inc.”
_______________ However, in August, 1987, the NPDC was ordered by the SEC to show
32
 Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 125 cause why its Certificate of Registration should not be suspended for: (a)
SCRA 522 (1983). failure to submit the General Information Sheet from 1981 to 1987; (b) failure
*
 FIRST DIVISION. to submit its Financial Statements from 1981 to 1986; (c) failure to register its
429 Corporate Books; and (d) failure to operate for a continuous period of at least
VOL. 180, DECEMBER 20, 1989 429 five (5) years since September 27, 1967.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals On August 18, 1987, the NPDC Chairman, Amado Lansang, Jr., informed
NPDC is a government agency, its employees are covered by civil SEC that his Office had no objection to the suspension, cancellation, or
service rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Article IX, 1987 Constitution). Its revocation of the Certificate of Registration of NPDC.
employees are civil service employees (Sec. 14, Executive Order No. 180). By virtue of Executive Order No. 120 dated January 30, 1989, the NPDC
Same;  Same; Same;  Union membership in government;  While the was attached to the Ministry (later Department) of Tourism and provided with
Committee’s employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to organize a separate budget subject to audit by the Commission on Audit.
and join unions of their choice, there is as yet no law permitting them to On September 10, 1987, the Civil Service Commission notified NPDC
strike.—While NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to that pursuant to Executive Order No. 120, all appointments and other
organize and join unions of their choice, there is as yet no law permitting personnel actions shall be submitted through the Commission.
them to strike. In case of a labor dispute between the employees and the Meanwhile, the Rizal Park Supervisory Employees Association,
government, Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180 dated June 1, 1987 consisting of employees holding supervisory positions in the different areas
provides that the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, not the of the parks, was organized and it affiliated with the Trade Union of the
Department of Labor Employment, shall hear the dispute. Clearly, the Court Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) under Certificate No. 1206.
of Appeals and the lower court erred in holding that the labor dispute On June 15,1987, two collective bargaining agreements were entered
between the NPDC and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the into between NPDC and NPDCEA (TUPAS local Chapter No. 967) and
Department of Labor and Employment. NPDC and NPDCSA (TUPAS Chapter No. 1206), for a period of two years or
PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. until June 30, 1989.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. On March 20,1988, these unions staged a strike at the Rizal Park, Fort
     Bienvenido D. Comia for respondents. Santiago, Paco Park, and Pook ni Mariang Makiling at Los Banos, Laguna,
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.: alleging unfair labor practices by NPDC.

Page 1 of 2
 On March 21, 1988, NPDC filed in the Regional Trial Court in Manila, 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Branch LII, a complaint against the union to declare the strike illegal and to Republic vs. Court of Appeals
restrain it on the ground that the strikers, being government employees, have Since NPDC is a government agency, its employees are covered by civil
no right to strike although they may form a union. service rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Article IX, 1987 Constitution). Its
On March 24, 1988, the lower court dismissed the complaint and lifted the employees are civil service employees (Sec. 14, Executive Order No. 180).
restraining order for lack of jurisdiction. It held While NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to
431 organize and join unions of their choice, there is as yet no law permitting
VOL. 180, DECEMBER 20, 1989 431 them to strike. In case of a labor dispute between the employees and the
Republic vs. Court of Appeals government, Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180 dated June 1, 1987
that the case “properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of provides that the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, not the
Labor,” because “there exists an employer-employee relationship” between Department of Labor and Employment, shall hear the dispute. Clearly, the
NPDC and the strikers, and “that the acts complained of in the complaint, Court of Appeals and the lower court erred in holding that the labor dispute
and which plaintiff seeks to enjoin in this action, fall under paragraph 5 of between the NPDC and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the
Article 217 of the Labor Code, x x x, in relation to Art. 265 of the same Code, Department of Labor and Employment.
hence, jurisdiction over said acts does not belong to this Court but to the WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The decision of the
Labor Arbiters of the Department of Labor.” (p. 142, Rollo.) Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14204 is hereby set aside. The private
Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari (CA-G.R. SPNo. respondents’ complaint should be filed in the Public Sector Labor-
14204). On March 31, 1989, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Management Council as provided in Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180.
trial court, hence, this petition for review. The petitioner alleges that the Court Costs against the private respondents.
of Appeals erred: SO ORDERED.
1. 1)in not holding that the NPDC employees are covered by the Civil      Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Service Law; and Petition granted. Decision set aside.
2. 2)in ruling that petitioner’s labor dispute with its employees is Notes.—Under the Constitution, government workers cannot strike or go
cognizable by the Department of Labor. on mass leave. (AGW vs. Ministry of Labor, 124 SCRA 1.)
We have considered the petition filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of View that social justice guarantee of the Constitution was intended for all
NPDC and the comments thereto and are persuaded that it is meritorious. and not only to private employees. (AGW vs. Ministry of Labor, 124 SCRA 1.)
In Jesus P. Perlas, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 84637-39, ——o0o——
August 2, 1989, we ruled that the NPDC is an agency of the government, not 433
a government-owned or controlled corporation, hence, the Sandiganbayan © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
had jurisdiction over its acting director who committed estafa. We held thus:
‘The National Parks Development Committee was created originally as an
Executive Committee on January 14, 1963, for the development of the
Quezon Memorial, Luneta and other national parks (Executive Order No. 30).
It was later designated as the National Parks Development Committee
(NPDC) on February 7, 1974 (E.O. No. 69). On January 9,1966, Mrs. Imelda
R. Marcos and Teodoro F. Valencia were designated Chairman and Vice-
Chairman respectively (E.O. No. 3). Despite an attempt to transfer it to the
Bureau of Forest Development, Department of Natural Resources, on
December 1, 1975 (Letter of Implementation No. 39, issued pursuant to PD
No. 830, dated November 27, 1975), the NPDC has remained under the
Office of the President (E.O. No. 709, dated July 27, 1981).
“Since 1977 to 1981, the annual appropriations decrees listed NPDC as a
regular government agency under the Office of the President and allotments
for its maintenance and operating expenses were issued direct to NPDC
(Exh. 10-A, Perlas, Item No. 2,3).” (Italics ours.)
432

Page 2 of 2