Case Summary (G.R. No. 80767)
Factual Background
On 19 October 1984 BSP issued Special Orders transferring the five employees from Makiling to BSP lands in Asuncion, Davao del Norte, scheduled 20 November 1984. The employees opposed the transfer, appealed to the BSP National President (4 November 1984), and attended a pre‑transfer briefing (6 November 1984) where they were assured no diminution in salary and a relocation allowance equal to one month’s basic pay. They persisted in opposition, filed a complaint for illegal transfer on 13 November 1984, and on 21 November 1984 were charged administratively for insubordination after refusing boat tickets and relocation allowances. BSP issued warnings that continued refusal could lead to termination. After a five‑day suspension in late January 1985, BSP issued a Special Order dated 12 February 1985 terminating their services effective 15 February 1985. The employees amended their complaint on 22 February 1985 to include illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice claims.
Procedural History in Labor Agencies
The Labor Arbiter heard the amended complaint and, in a decision dated 31 July 1985, dismissed the complainants’ claims for lack of merit. On 27 February 1987 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages from the time of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. The BSP filed a petition for certiorari challenging the NLRC Decision and subsequent Resolution (16 October 1987), raising jurisdictional and status issues regarding the BSP.
Central Legal Issue
Whether the Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a branch, subdivision, instrumentality, or agency of the Government—specifically whether it is a government‑owned or controlled corporation with an original charter—such that its employees are embraced within the Civil Service under Article IX‑B(2)(1) of the 1987 Constitution. The resolution of this question determined whether the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to hear and decide the employees’ complaint.
Parties’ Contentions on BSP’s Status
Petitioner BSP and the private respondents largely characterized BSP as a private, independent, voluntary, non‑governmental organization, asserting nonreceipt of government monetary subsidies and governance by a National Executive Board composed of voluntary scouters. Private respondents additionally argued that even if BSP had been created as a public corporation, later statutory provisions conferred attributes of private corporations and BSP’s practices (e.g., SSS registration of employees, private auditing) indicated loss of public corporation status. Conversely, the Solicitor General and the Government Corporate Counsel contended that BSP is a public or quasi‑public corporation and a government‑controlled corporation, emphasizing creation by Commonwealth Act No. 111 (as amended), the public and benevolent character of its objectives, and the extent of government participation in its governance.
Statutory and Factual Considerations Examined
The Court examined (1) BSP’s chartered functions, which promote civic virtues, patriotism, youth development and other socially important objectives; (2) the composition and appointment mechanics of the National Executive Board (including the presence of several Cabinet Secretaries and the requirement of ratification and confirmation by the Chief Scout, the President of the Philippines, for most board appointments); (3) BSP’s funding and asset character (membership dues, property rentals, donations; lack of Commission on Audit oversight reflected in private auditing practice); and (4) administrative designations under the Administrative Code of 1987, which lists BSP among attached agencies of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and provides definitions of “agency,” “government instrumentality,” and “chartered institution.” The Court noted that while BSP’s functions are not governmental in the territorial/governing sense nor proprietary in a business‑enterprise sense, the public nature of its objectives and substantial governmental participation in its governance weigh in favor of public characterization.
Court’s Classification of BSP and Rationale
Considering the public aspect of BSP’s statutory purposes, the statutory designation of BSP as a public corporation, substantial governmental participation in the selection of the National Executiv
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 80767)
Case Caption, Citation and Court
- Reported at 273 Phil. 390, Third Division, G.R. No. 80767; decided April 22, 1991.
- Petition for Certiorari filed by Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) seeking nullification of (1) NLRC Decision dated 27 February 1987 and (2) NLRC Resolution dated 16 October 1987, both in NLRC Case No. 1637-84.
- Decision authored by Justice Feliciano; concurrence by Chief Justice Fernan and Justices Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Davide, Jr.
Parties
- Petitioner: Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP).
- Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as public respondent; private respondents Fortunato C. Esquerra, Roberto O. Malaborbor, Estanislao M. Misa, Vicente N. Evangelista and Marcelino P. Garcia (rank-and-file employees formerly stationed at BSP Camp in Makiling, Los Baños, Laguna).
Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 challenging NLRC decision and resolution that reversed a Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of private respondents’ complaint and ordered reinstatement with backwages.
- Central procedural question: whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to render its Decision and Resolution in NLRC Case No. 1637-84.
Factual Background
- On 19 October 1984, BSP Secretary-General issued Special Orders Nos. 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85 directing the five employees to be transferred on 20 November 1984 from BSP Camp, Makiling to BSP Land Grant in Asuncion, Davao del Norte.
- Private respondents opposed the transfers and on 4 November 1984 appealed to the BSP National President.
- On 6 November 1984 BSP held a pre-transfer briefing at National Headquarters in Manila; private respondents attended and were assured: no diminution in salary and a relocation allowance equivalent to one month’s basic pay.
- Despite assurances, private respondents maintained opposition; on 13 November 1984 they filed a complaint for illegal transfer (docketed NLRC Case No. 16-84J) with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch IV, San Pablo City, Laguna, seeking to enjoin implementation of the Special Orders and alleging prejudice, effect on families, and economic instability.
- On 21 November 1984 the BSP Camp Manager issued a Memorandum requiring the five to explain why they should not be charged with insubordination, following their refusal two days earlier to accept boat tickets and relocation allowances.
- On the same date the BSP National President informed them their refusal constituted rank disobedience; memoranda from the Secretary-General warned refusal and explanations were unacceptable and could result in termination.
- Private respondents continued to disobey; BSP imposed a five-day suspension in late January 1985.
- By Special Order dated 12 February 1985, BSP terminated the services of the five effective 15 February 1985.
- On 22 February 1985 private respondents amended their original complaint to include charges of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
- Labor Arbiter heard the complaint and, in a decision dated 31 July 1985, dismissed private respondents’ complaint for lack of merit.
- On 27 February 1987 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and held private respondents were illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement with full backwages from dismissal to reinstatement.
Procedural Posture and Documents Filed
- BSP’s Position Paper filed with Labor Arbiter described BSP as "a civic service, non-stock and non-profit organization, relying mostly [on] government and public support, existing under and by virtue of Commonwealth Act. No. 111, as amended, by Presidential Decree No. 460."
- Similar allegations appeared in BSP’s Brief for Appellee, Petition and Memorandum filed with the NLRC and Supreme Court.
- The Solicitor General’s Comment (for NLRC) and BSP private respondents’ Appeal Memorandum characterized BSP variously as public corporation, quasi-public, government-controlled, or purely private.
- On 9 August 1989 the Supreme Court required parties and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel to file comments on whether BSP is a government-owned or controlled corporation.
- Petitioner BSP, private respondents, the Solicitor General and Government Corporate Counsel filed comments in response.
Central Legal Issue
- Whether the Boy Scouts of the Philippines is embraced within the Civil Service as defined in Article IX (B) (2) (1) of the 1987 Constitution, i.e., whether BSP is a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter such that its employees fall within civil service coverage.
- The determination of BSP’s status controls whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain and decide NLRC Case No. 1637-84.
Parties’ Contentions on BSP’s Character
- Petitioner BSP and private respondents (in one line of argument) both submitted substantially the same view that BSP is "a purely private organization," invoking BSP Constitution and By-laws which declare BSP an independent, voluntary, non-political, non-sectarian and non-governmental organization.
- Petitioner emphasized BSP receives no monetary or financial subsidies from national or local government, is directed and controlled by the National Executive Board composed of voluntary scouters (including seven Cabinet Secretaries), and is non-profit.
- Private respondents alternatively argued that BSP, though created as a public corporation, had lost that status because Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 111 (as amended by P.D. No. 460) conferred upon it powers akin to ordinary private corporations under the Corporation Code (perpetual succession, power to sue and be sued, hold real and personal estate, receive gifts, adopt by-laws, conduct business, etc.).
- Private respondents noted BSP is registered as a private employer with the Social Security System, its staff covered by the Social Security Act, BSP’s assets and liabilities and financial statements have not been audited by the Commission on Audit but by a private auditing firm (Sycip Gorres Velayo and Co.), and appointments of BSP officers and staff were not approved or confirmed by the Civil Service Commission — arguments tending to show BSP had assumed private characteristics.
Government Positions (Solicitor General and Government Corporate Counsel)
- Solicitor General’s position:
- BSP is a government-owned or controlled corporation created by Commonwealth Act No. 111 entitle