Case Digest (G.R. No. 210773)
Facts:
GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v. Sec. Cesar L. Villanueva, G.R. No. 210773, January 23, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from the corporate history of what began as Royal Savings Bank (incorporated 1969, operating 1971), which fell into regulatory distress in 1984 and was placed under receivership by the Central Bank. After negotiated rehabilitation arrangements and share transfers involving Commercial Bank of Manila and later Boston Bank, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) infused capital and, by a 1993 memorandum and subsequent transactions, came to own some 99.55% of the bank’s outstanding shares; the bank later changed its name to GSIS Family Bank (circa 2001).
In 2004 the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) General Counsel advised that GSIS Family Bank could not be categorized as a government bank because it was originally organized under the Corporation Code for private ends. Following Executive Order No. 7 (2010) and the enactment of Republic Act No. 10149 (GOCC Governance Act of 2011), GSIS Family Bank sought clarification from BSP and the Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG) about whether RA 10149 applied to it and whether it could negotiate economic terms in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The GCG replied (Feb. and Mar. 2013 letters) that as a government financial institution under RA 10149, GSIS Family Bank was without authority to negotiate or approve economic terms of CBAs because the law mandates a Compensation and Position Classification System (CPCS) that applies to all GOCCs and any changes in compensation were subject to presidential approval.
The GSIS Family Bank Employees Union (GSIS Union) demanded contractual benefits (including a 2013 Christmas bonus) and filed complaints with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and notices of strike; some employees filed petitions with the NLRC and DOLE to enforce their CBA. On January 30, 2014 the GSIS Union filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court, asking the Court to declare GSIS Family Bank a private bank outside RA 10149, to compel the GCG to desist, and to order bank management to negotiate and comply with the existing CBA.
Respondents — GCG Chair Cesar L. Villanueva and GSIS Family Bank officers Emmanuel L. Benitez (President) and Atty. Geraldine Marie Berberabe-Martinez (Chairperson of the Board) — filed comments arguing (inter alia) that the Petition invoked the wrong remedy because the GCG is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body, that indispensable parties were omitted, and that RA 10149 in fact covers both chartered and non‑chartered GOCCs thereby limiting the bank’s power to negotiate economic terms. While the petition was pending, the BSP Monetary Board, by MB Resolution 826.A (May 13, 2016 / Circular CL-2016-036), prohibited GSIS Family Bank from doing business and designated the Philippine Deposit and Insurance Corporation as receiver.
The Sup...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus under Rule 65 the correct remedy to challenge the GCG’s advisory opinions?
- Did the closure (receivership) of GSIS Family Bank render the Petition moot?
- Can a non‑chartered government‑owned or controlled corporation (non‑chartered GOCC) such as GSIS Family Bank negotiate and enter into a collective bargaining ag...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)