Title
Agricultural Credit vs. Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices
Case
G.R. No. L-21484
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1969
Labor dispute over ACCFA/ACA's proprietary functions, CBA enforcement, unfair labor practices, and certification election upheld by CIR and Supreme Court.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21484)

Facts:

  • Case G.R. No. L-21484
    • On September 4, 1961, the ACCFA Supervisors’ Association (ASA) and the ACCFA Workers’ Association (AWA) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA), effective July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1962.
    • The Unions later protested alleged violations of the CBA and, on October 25, 1962, declared a strike which ended when they returned to work on November 26, 1962.
    • On October 30, 1962, the Unions and CUGCO filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) (Case No. 3450-ULP) alleging:
      • Violation of the CBA to discourage union self-organization;
      • Discrimination in promotions; and
      • Refusal to bargain in good faith.
    • The ACCFA denied jurisdiction, challenged the legality and expiration of the CBA, and moved for reconsideration.
    • On March 25, 1963, the CIR ordered the ACCFA:
      • To cease and desist ULPs;
      • To implement the CBA, including payment of a ₱30 monthly living allowance; and
      • To bargain in good faith.
    • The ACCFA’s motion for reconsideration was denied on April 25, 1963, prompting this certiorari appeal.
  • Case G.R. No. L-23605
    • Republic Act No. 3844 (Land Reform Code), signed August 8, 1963, reorganized ACCFA into the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA).
    • On March 17, 1964, ASA and AWA filed a petition for certification election with the CIR (Case No. 1327-MC) to be exclusive bargaining agents for ACA supervisors and rank-and-file employees.
    • The ACA challenged jurisdiction, the Unions’ majority status, and the right of government employees to belong to such unions.
    • By joint manifestation (May 7, 1964), the ACA and the Unions agreed the Unions represented the majority; only legal issues were to be resolved.
    • On May 21, 1964, the CIR certified ASA and AWA as exclusive bargaining representatives; this order was affirmed en banc on August 24, 1964.
    • On October 2, 1964, the ACA filed for certiorari with an urgent motion to stay; on October 6, 1964, the Court granted a stay and required adequate allegations. ACA complied and this appeal ensued.

Issues:

  • Does the CIR have jurisdiction over ACCFA/ACA when it performs governmental rather than proprietary functions?
  • Is the September 4, 1961 CBA valid, unexpired, and enforceable, particularly as to its fringe-benefit provisions?
  • Was there a sufficient basis—legal or factual—for the CIR’s finding of unfair labor practice by the ACCFA?
  • Can the CIR enforce a CBA that has already expired?
  • May a labor organization composed of government employees petition for a certification election and compel collective bargaining?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.