Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association

Factual Background

An acting prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations filed a complaint for unfair labor practice on behalf of the Bureau of Printing Employees Association (NLU) and named the Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador as Acting Secretary of the Department of General Services, and Mariano Ledesma as Director of the Bureau of Printing, as respondents. The complaint alleged interference with and coercion of Bureau employees in their right of self-organization and discriminatory acts regarding hire and tenure to discourage union activity. The petitioners denied the allegations and raised affirmative defenses, including that the Bureau is a government agency not organized for profit, that it lacks juridical personality, and that the Court of Industrial Relations therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Proceedings in the Court of Industrial Relations

The petitioners moved for a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and for suspension of trial pending determination of that question. The trial judge granted the motion but, after hearing, issued an order dated January 27, 1959 sustaining the Industrial Court's jurisdiction on the theory that the functions of the Bureau of Printing were "exclusively proprietary in nature" and denied dismissal. The court en banc denied reconsideration of that order.

Petition and Relief Sought in the Supreme Court

The petitioners brought the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, seeking to annul the Industrial Court's orders and to restrain further proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This Court granted the petition and issued the preliminary injunction without bond pending resolution of the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

The principal legal question was whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Bureau of Printing, an office of the National Government, and against its officials. Subsidiary questions included whether the Bureau possessed corporate or juridical personality making it suable, whether its functions were proprietary or governmental in character, and whether Industrial Court cognizance would improperly review executive disciplinary acts.

Parties' Contentions

The petitioners contended that the Bureau of Printing is an instrumentality of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657), that it is not organized for profit, that it lacks corporate existence and is funded through appropriations in the General Appropriations Act, and that the Industrial Peace Act does not extend to governmental offices not engaged in industry for gain. The respondents relied on the Bureau's receipt of outside jobs and the payment of overtime to some employees to characterize its functions as proprietary and within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.

Court's Analysis of the Bureau's Nature and Functions

The Court examined the statutory duties of the Bureau of Printing under the Rev. Adm. Code and found that it is charged with the execution of printing and binding required by the National Government and with such incidental work as the Executive Secretary may authorize (sec. 1644). The Court noted that the Bureau has no corporate existence, operates under the supervision of the Executive Secretary, and is primarily a service bureau not engaged in business for pecuniary profit. The Court observed that overtime work is performed only when the interest of the service so requires and that payment for overtime is discretionary and dependent upon appropriations (sec. 566). The Court further found that outside jobs are undertaken only upon request and "as the requirements of Government work will permit" (sec. 1654), and upon terms fixed by the Director with departmental approval (sec. 1655).

Analysis of Private Work and Profit Element

The Court reviewed the evidence on private work undertaken by the Bureau and found that such jobs constituted only one-half of one percent of the volume of work and that the Bureau does not include profit in computing costs for private work because it is not permitted to do so. The Court concluded that the additional private work is incidental to the Bureau's governmental function and that, even if proprietary in character in the narrow instances it occurs, there was no showing that employees engaged in proprietary tasks are separate and distinct from those performing general governmental functions.

Jurisdictional Doctrine and Precedents

Relying on a line of prior decisions, the Court reiterated that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction over institutions or corporations not organized for profit and not constituting industrial or business organizations. The Court explained that the Industrial Peace Act was intended to govern relations in industrial employment between employers engaged for purposes of gain and their industrial employees. The Court cited decisions including University of the Philippines, et al. vs. CIR, et al., University of Sto. Tomas vs. Villanueva, et al., and La Consolacion College vs. CIR, to support the proposition that governmental offices not organized for profit fall outside Industrial Court jurisdiction.

Administrative Discipline and Separation of Functions

The Court noted that the instant dispute arose contemporaneously with administrative charges filed by the Acting Secretary of General Services against certain officers of the respondent association for insubordination, grave misconduct, and acts prejudicial to public service in allegedly inciting a walkout. The Court emphasized