Title
Arizala vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-43633-34
Decision Date
Sep 14, 1990
Supervisors in GSIS, convicted under Industrial Peace Act for joining rank-and-file union, acquitted after repeal by Labor Code nullified their criminal liability.
collective bargaining
supervisors
constitutional provisions
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43633-34)

Factual Background

The petitioners were supervisory officials of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Central Visayas Regional Office: Arizala and Maribao as Chief of the Accounting Division and Chief of the Billing Section respectively, and Joven and Bulandus as Assistant Chiefs and acting chiefs at times. At the time, GSIS was bound by a collective bargaining agreement with the GSIS Employees Association containing a maintenance-of-membership clause obliging employees who were then members, or who became members, to remain in good standing for the life of the agreement. Demands were made that the petitioners resign their union membership because of their supervisory status. They refused.

Trial Court Proceedings

Criminal cases for alleged violation of the Industrial Peace Act were filed in the City Court of Cebu: Crim. Case No. 5275-R against Arizala and Maribao, and Crim. Case No. 4130-R against Joven and Bulandus. Each accused was convicted by the City Court and sentenced to pay a fine of P500.00 or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Appeals to the Court of Appeals

The petitioners appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 14724-CR and CA-G.R. No. 14856-CR, which were consolidated on motion of appellants. The Court of Appeals promulgated judgment on January 29, 1976 affirming the convictions. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration to which the Appellate Court denied relief.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The decisive legal issue was whether subsequent constitutional and statutory changes erased or otherwise extinguished the criminal liability of the petitioners for violating the prohibition in Republic Act No. 875 forbidding supervisors from being members of labor organizations composed of employees under their supervision.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners argued that their criminal liability had been obliterated by later developments in the law. They relied principally on Section 1, Article XII-B of the 1973 Constitution and on Presidential Decree No. 442 (the Labor Code), which removed government employees generally from the regime of collective bargaining and provided that the terms and conditions of government employment were to be governed by civil service law and regulations. They pointed out that the Labor Code omitted the specific penal provision of the Industrial Peace Act prohibiting supervisory membership and that the Code treated unfair labor practices as administrative rather than criminal offenses.

Respondent's Contentions

The People of the Philippines responded that actions and claims accruing prior to the effectivity of the Labor Code were to be determined under the laws in force at the time of accrual and that the legislature could not, by repeal, retroactively vacate judgments of courts in criminal matters. The People thus defended the Appellate Court's affirmation of the convictions.

Legal and Statutory Evolution Relied Upon by the Court

The Court recited the statutory and constitutional evolution bearing on collective bargaining and membership restrictions. Under RA 875 employees employed in proprietary functions had the right of self-organization and collective bargaining but supervisors were prohibited from membership in unions of employees under their supervision and a penalty was prescribed for violation. RA 2260 (Civil Service Act) similarly limited strikes and regulated union membership for those employed in governmental functions. The 1973 Constitution guaranteed workers the right to self-organization and directed standardization of compensation. The Labor Code (PD 442), effective November 1, 1974, declared that terms and conditions of employment of all government employees were governed by civil service law and expressly exempted government employees from the right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining. PD 807 expanded the scope of civil service to include all government corporations whether performing governmental or proprietary functions. EO No. 111 and EO No. 180, and later RA 6715, progressively modified the reach of collective bargaining and membership rules by restoring certain rights of organization to employees of government corporations, defining negotiable and non-negotiable subjects, and refining the eligibility of supervisory and managerial employees to join unions.

Court's Analysis of Supervisory Membership and Penal Provisions

The Court observed that the Law had changed materially since the petitioners acted. The Labor Code initially treated unfair labor practices as administrative but a later amendment by Batas Pambansa Blg. 70 re-criminalized unfair labor practices, making them prosecutable once administrative remedies produced a final finding. More critically, the Court noted that under the then-current statutory scheme, particularly RA 6715 and implementing rules, supervisors who were already members of a rank-and-file bargaining unit at the time of the statute’s effectivity were expressly authorized to remain in that unit. Thus, maintenance of membership by supervisors who were members before the prohibitory statute or clause took effect was explicitly permitted under present law.

Precedent on Repeal and Criminal Liability

The Court relied on settled precedent that repeal of a penal statute which abolishes the criminality of the act deprives courts of jurisdiction to punish persons for conduct that ceased to be criminal by reason of repeal. The Court cited People v. Tamayo and People v. Almuete to the effect that where the legislature plainly manifests intent that certain conduct no longer be punished, continuing prosecution or punishment under the repealed law is impermissible.

Ruling and Disposition

Applying those principles, the Court held that the petitioners’ criminal liability for maintainin

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms