Bliss Development Corporation Employees Union-Sentro Ng Demokratikong Manggagawa v. Calleja
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The core dispute revolves around whether Bliss Development Corporation (BDC), a corporation majority-owned by the government-owned Human Settlement Development Corporation (HSDC), is subject to Civil Service Laws or the Labor Code. This determination is crucial for establishing whether its employees, represented by the Bliss Development Corporation Employees Union (BDCEU-SDM), are prohibited from forming or joining labor organizations, as would be the case if BDC were classified as a government-owned corporation under Civil Service rules. 2. Procedural History: The BDCEU-SDM filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that BDC is a government-owned corporation subject to Civil Service laws, citing its majority ownership by HSDC and Supreme Court precedent. The union appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). While the appeal was pending, Executive Order No. 180, granting government employees the right to organize, was issued. The BLR Director dismissed the appeal, noting the change in law but still requiring the union to register under Section 7 of EO 180, and dismissing the petition without prejudice to refiling after registration. 3. The Petition: The BDCEU-SDM filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the BLR Director gravely abused her discretion. The petition contends that EO 180 does not cover BDC because it is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, as required by Section 1 of the EO. Furthermore, the petition asserts that the Director erred in insisting on the union's registration under EO 180, which the petitioner argues is inapplicable, and in relying on an outdated Ministry of Justice opinion that BDC itself allegedly ignores.
Issue(s)
Whether Bliss Development Corporation (BDC) is a government-owned controlled corporation subject to Civil Service Laws, and whether its employees are prohibited from joining labor organizations. Whether petitioner BDCEU-SDM is covered by Executive Order No. 180 and must register as a precondition for filing a petition for certification election. Whether the Director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner to register under Section 7 of Executive Order No. 180.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the order of the Director of Labor Relations dated August 7, 1987, and directed the Director of Labor Relations to give due course to petitioner's application for certification election.
Ratio Decidendi
On the coverage of BDC, applicability of Civil Service Law, and prohibition to join labor organizations: The Court held that Section 1 of Executive Order No. 180 expressly limits its application to government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. BDC was created under the Corporation Code and is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. Therefore, Executive Order No. 180 does not apply to BDC. The Court reiterated that the 1987 Constitution, unlike the 1973 Constitution, limits the coverage of the Civil Service to government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. This provision, by clear implication, means that the Civil Service does not include government-owned or controlled corporations organized under the general corporation law as subsidiaries. Since BDC is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, its employees are governed by the Labor Code and are not prohibited from joining or forming labor organizations. The Med-Arbiter's and Director's reliance on the National Housing Corporation v. Juco case and Opinion No. 94, series of 1985, was misplaced due to the change in constitutional provisions. On the coverage of BDC and Executive Order No. 180: The Court held that Section 1 of Executive Order No. 180 expressly limits its application to government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. BDC was created under the Corporation Code and is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. Therefore, Executive Order No. 180 does not apply to BDC. On the Director's grave abuse of discretion and conclusion: The Court found that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to register under Section 7 of Executive Order No. 180, as this provision was not applicable to BDC. The Director's dismissal of the petition for certification election was therefore without legal basis. Consequently, the petition was granted, the order of the Director of Labor Relations was set aside, and the Director was directed to give due course to the petitioner's application for certification election.
Main Doctrine
A government-owned or controlled corporation organized under the Corporation Code, without an original charter, is not covered by Executive Order No. 180 and its employees are not prohibited from joining or forming labor organizations under the Labor Code, as the 1987 Constitution limits the Civil Service coverage of government-owned or controlled corporations to those with original charters.