Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975
PHILIPPINE VIRGINI TO!CCO "MINISTRTION, Petitioner, vs. COURT
O# IN"USTRIL RELTIONS, REUEL !RHM, MILGROS !UEG,
VELINO COST, CROLIN COST, MRTIN GSLU", JOSE#IN
GUINL"O, GLORI L!NO, NTONIO LUNING, COSME LVRE$,
IS!EL L$TE, UROR PUSEN, TOMS RCNGEL, LOUR"ES
RJONELLO, MNUEL ROMIN, "IONISIO SISTIN, JOSE URE, NICSIO
$NR, EUGENIO $URIN, CLRIT !CUGN, PIO !LGOT, HERE"IO
!LMCE", ESTHER !NG, JOVENCIO !R!ERO, MONICO
!R!"ILLO, HERNN"O !RRO$O, #ILIPIN !RRO$O, REME"IO
!RTOLOME, NGELIN !SCOS, JOSE !TLL, LMRIO !UTIST,
EUGENIO !UTIST, JR., HERMLO !UTIST, JUNITO !UTIST,
SEVERINO !R!NO, CPPI !RGONI, ESMERL" !ERNR"E$,
RU!EN !ERNR"E$, L#RE"O !ONGER, TOMS !O%UIREN, NGELIN
!RVO, VIRGINI !RING, L!ERTO !UNEO, SIMEON C!N&N,
LUCRECI CCTIN, LEONI"ES C"&, NGELIN C"OTTE, IGNCIO
CL&C&, PCI#ICO CLU!, RU#INO CLU$, CLVIN CM!, L#RE"O
CMPOSENO, !GUILIT CNTO, L#RE"O CRRER, PE"RO CSES,
CRESCENTE CSIS, ERNESTO CSTNE", HERMINIO CSTILLO, JOSE
CSTRO, LEONOR CSTRO, M"EO CSTRO, MRI PIN$ON CSTRO,
P!LO CTUR, RESTITUTO CESP"ES, #LOR CHCON, E"MUN"O
CORPU$, ESTHER CRU$, CELI CURESM, %UILINO "C&O,
"IONISI "SLL, SOCORRO "EL#IN, !ELR"O "I$, RTHUR "I$,
C&NTHI "I$ON, MRCI "I$ON, IS!ELO "OMINGO, HONORT "O$,
CROLIN "U", JUSTININO EPISTOL, ROMEO ENCRNCION,
PRIMITIVO ESCNO, ELS ESPEJO, JUN ESPEJO, RI$LIN ES%UILLO,
&SMEL #RINS, LORN #VIS, "N #ERNN"E$, JIME #ERNN"E$,
L#RE"O #ERRER, MO"ESTO #ERRER, JR., EUGENIO #LN"E$,
GUILLERMO #LOREN"O, L#RE"O #LORES, "OMING #LORES, ROMEO
#LORES, LIG& #ONTNILL, MELCHOR GSMEN, LEIL GSMEN,
CONSUELO GROLG, L#ONSO GOROSPE, CESR GOROSPE, RICR"O
GOROSPE, JR., CRLITO GU$MN, ERNESTO "E GU$MN, THELM "E
GU$MN, #ELI' HERNN"E$, SOLIVEN HERNN"O, #RNCISCO
HI"LGO, LEONILO INES, SI'TO J%UIES, TRINI"" JVIER, #ERMIN
LGU, GUL!ERTO LM!INO, ROMN LNTING, OSCR L$O, ROSRIO
L$O, JOSE#IN "E LR, M!ROSIO L$OL, NLIE LI!TI%UE,
LM!ERTO LLMS, NTONIO LLNES, ROMUL LOPE$, "RINO
LOREN$N, NTONIO MCREG, IL"E#ONSO MGT, CECILIO
MGHNO&, L#ONSO MGSNOC, VELIN MLLRE, UGUSTO
MNLO, "OMIN"OR MNSN, !ENITO MNECLNG, JR., TIRSO
MNGUM&, EVELI MN$NO, HONORNTE MRINO, "OMINGO
ME"IN, MRTIN MEN"O$, PER#ECTO MILN, EMILIO MILLN,
GREGORIO MONEGS, CONSOLCION NVLT, NOLI OCMPO, VICENTE
CLEGRIO, ELPI"IO PLMONES, RCELI PNGLNGN, ISI"ORO
PNLSIGUI, JR., RTEMIO PRIS, JR., #E"ERICO P&UMO, JR., NELI
P&UMO, !ITUEN P$, #RNCISCO PENGSON, OSCR PERLT,
PROCORRO PERLT, RMON PERLT, MIN" PICH&, MURO
PIMENTEL, PRU"ENCIO PIMENTEL, LEOPOL"O PUNO, RE&NL"O R!E,
ROLN"O RE, CONSTNTINO RE, CECILI RICO, CECILIO RILLOR$,
UROR ROMN, MERCE"ES RU!IO, URSUL RUPISN, OLIVI S!"O,
!ERNR"O SCRMENTO, LU$ SLV"OR, JOSE SMSON, JR., ROMUL
"E LOS SNTOS, NTONIO S&SON, JR., #LORNTE SERIL, MRIO
SISON, RU"& SISON, PROCE"IO T!IN, LUCEN T!ISUL, HNNI!L
TJNO, ENRI%UE TINGCO, JR., JUSTININO TO!IS, N&MI
TOLENTINO, CONSTNTE TOLENTINO, TEO"ORO TORE!IO, #E"ERICO
TRINI"", JOVENCINTO TRINI"", L$RO VL"E$, LU"RLIN
VL"E$, M'IMIN VL"E$, #RNCISCO VELSCO, JR., ROSIT
VELSCO, SEVERO VNTNILL, VENNCIO VENTIGN, #ELICITS
VENUS, NIEVES "E VER, ELISEO VERSO$, SILVESTRE VIL, GLORI
VILLMOR, LEJN"RO VELLNUEV, "VI" VILLNUEV, CROLIN
VILLSENOR ORLN"O VILLSTI%UE, MJELL VILORIN, ROSRIO
VILORI, M& VIRT, #E"ERICO VIR&, MEL! &M!O, MRIO
$MOR, UTENOR !UEG, SOTERO CE"O, HONR"O L!ERTO, #ELIPE
LI"O, VICENTE NCHUELO, LI!ERT" PEROCHO, MRINO !L!GO,
MRIO !LMCE", "IS& !ICENIO, S&LVI !USTMNTE, R&MUN"O
GEMERINO, L$RO CPURS, ROGELIO CRUNGCONG, $CRIS
C&ETNO, JR., LIL& CHU, N"RES CRU$, RTURO CRU$, !IENVENI"O
ESTE!N, P!LO JRET, MNUEL JOSE, NESTORI (INTNR,
CLEOPTRI L$EM. MELCHOR L$O, JESUS LUN, GSPR MRINS,
CESR MULSON, MNUEL ME"IN, JESUS PLUR", L(M!INI R$ON,
GLORI I!NE$, JOSE SNTOS, ELE$R S%UI, JOSE TM&O, #ELIPE
TENORIO, SILVINO UMLI, VICENTE $R, STURNINO GRCI,
)ILLIM GRCI, NORM GRINGRO, ROSRIO NTONIO, RU!EN
!UTIST, %UIRINO PUESTO, NELI M. GOMERI, OSCR R. LNU$,
UROR M. LIN"&, GREGORIO MOGSINO, JCRM !. PP, GREGORIO
R. RIEGO, TERESIT N. RO$UL, MGTNGOL SML, POR#IRIO
GOCOLIS, LEONR"O MONTE, HERMELINO PTI, L#RE"O P&O&O,
PURI#ICCION ROJS, O"NO TENO, RICR"O SNTIGO, *+,
MRCELO MNGHS, Respondents.
#ERNN"O, J.:
The principal issue that calls for resolution in this appeal by certiorari < a writ
or order by which a higher court reviews a decision
of a lower court> from an order of respondent Court of ndustrial
Relations is one of constitutional si!nificance. t is concerned "ith the e#panded
role of !overnment necessitated by the increased responsibility to provide for the
!eneral "elfare. More specifically, it deals "ith the $uestion of "hether petitioner,
the Philippine %ir!inia Tobacco Administration, dischar!es !overnmental and not
proprietary functions. The landmar& opinion of the then 'ustice, ro" Chief 'ustice,
Ma&alintal in Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v.
Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and offices, points the "ay
to the ri!ht ans"er.
1
t interpreted the then fundamental la" as hostile to the
vie" of a limited or ne!ative state. t is antithetical to the laissez faire< a
policy or attitude of letting things take their own
course, without interfering.> concept. (or as noted in an earlier
decision, the "elfare state concept )is not alien to the philosophy of *the +,-./
Constitution.)
2
t is much more so under the present Charter, "hich is impressed
"ith an even more e#plicit reco!nition of social and economic ri!hts.
3
There is
manifest, to recall 0as&i, )a definite increase in the profundity of the social
conscience,) resultin! in )a state "hich see&s to reali1e more fully the common
!ood of its members.)
-
t does not necessarily follo", ho"ever, 2ust because
petitioner is en!a!ed in !overnmental rather than proprietary functions, that the
labor controversy "as beyond the 2urisdiction of the no" defunct respondent
Court. Nor is the ob2ection raised that petitioner does not come "ithin the
covera!e of the Ei!ht34our 0abor 0a" persuasive.
5
5e cannot then !rant the
reversal sou!ht. 5e affirm.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la"
library
The facts are undisputed. 6n 7ecember 89, +,::, claimants, no" private
respondents, filed "ith respondent Court a petition "herein they alle!ed their
employment relationship, the overtime services in e#cess of the re!ular ei!ht
hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay them overtime
compensation in accordance "ith Common"ealth Act No. ;;;. Their prayer "as
for the differential bet"een the amount actually paid to them and the amount
alle!edly due them.
.
There "as an ans"er filed by petitioner Philippine %ir!inia
Tobacco Administration denyin! the alle!ations and raisin! the special defenses of
lac& of a cause of action and lac& of 2urisdiction.
7
The issues "ere thereafter
2oined, and the case set for trial, "ith both parties presentin! their evidence.
/

After the parties submitted the case for decision, the then Presidin! 'ud!e Arsenio
T. Martine1 of respondent Court issued an order sustainin! the claims of private
respondents for overtime services from 7ecember 8-, +,:- up to the date the
decision "as rendered on March 8+, +,<9, and directin! petitioner to pay the
same, minus "hat it had already paid. 9 There "as a motion for reconsideration,
but respondent Court en banc denied the same.
10
4ence this petition for
certiorari.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
Petitioner Philippine %ir!inia Tobacco Administration, as had been noted, "ould
predicate its plea for the reversal of the order complained of on the basic
proposition that it is beyond the 2urisdiction of respondent Court as it is e#ercisin!
!overnmental functions and that it is e#empt from the operation of
Common"ealth Act No. ;;;.
11
5hile, to repeat, its submission as to the
!overnmental character of its operation is to be !iven credence, it is not a
necessary conse$uence that respondent Court is devoid of 2urisdiction. Nor could
the challen!ed order be set aside on the additional ar!ument that the Ei!ht34our
0abor 0a" is not applicable to it. =o it "as, at the outset, made
clear.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
+. A reference to the enactments creatin! petitioner corporation suffices to
demonstrate the merit of petitioner>s plea that it performs !overnmental and not
proprietary functions. As ori!inally established by Republic Act No. 88:.,
12
its
purposes and ob2ectives "ere set forth thus? )@aA To promote the effective
merchandisin! of %ir!inia tobacco in the domestic and forei!n mar&ets so that
those en!a!ed in the industry "ill be placed on a basis of economic securityB @bA
To establish and maintain balanced production and consumption of %ir!inia
tobacco and its manufactured products, and such mar&etin! conditions as "ill
insure and stabili1e the price of a level sufficient to cover the cost of production
plus reasonable profit both in the local as "ell as in the forei!n mar&etB @cA To
create, establish, maintain, and operate processin!, "arehousin! and mar&etin!
facilities in suitable centers and supervise the sellin! and buyin! of %ir!inia
tobacco so that the farmers "ill en2oy reasonable prices that secure a fair return
of their investmentsB @dA To prescribe rules and re!ulations !overnin! the
!radin!, classifyin!, and inspectin! of %ir!inia tobaccoB and @eA To improve the
livin! and economic conditions of the people en!a!ed in the tobacco industry.)
13

The amendatory statute, Republic Act No. ;+..,
1-
renders even more evident its
nature as a !overnmental a!ency. ts first section on the declaration of policy
reads? )t is declared to be the national policy, "ith respect to the local %ir!inia
tobacco industry, to encoura!e the production of local %ir!inia tobacco of the
$ualities needed and in $uantities mar&etable in both domestic and forei!n
mar&ets, to establish this industry on an efficient and economic basis, and, to
create a climate conducive to local ci!arette manufacture of the $ualities desired
by the consumin! public, blendin! imported and native %ir!inia leaf tobacco to
improve the $uality of locally manufactured ci!arettes.)
15
The ob2ectives are set
forth thus? )To attain this national policy the follo"in! ob2ectives are hereby
adopted? +. (inancin!B 8. Mar&etin!B -. The disposal of stoc&s of the A!ricultural
Credit Administration @ACAA and the Philippine %ir!inia Tobacco Administration
@P%TAA at the best obtainable prices and conditions in order that a reinvi!orated
%ir!inia tobacco industry may be established on a sound basisB and ;. mprovin!
the $uality of locally manufactured ci!arettes throu!h blendin! of imported and
native %ir!inia leaf tobaccoB such importation "ith correspondin! e#portation at a
ratio of one &ilo of imported to four &ilos of e#ported %ir!inia tobacco, purchased
by the importer3e#porter from the Philippine %ir!inia Tobacco Administration.)
1.

chanrobles virtual la" library
t is thus readily apparent from a cursory perusal of such statutory provisions "hy
petitioner can ri!htfully invo&e the doctrine announced in the leadin! A!ricultural
Credit and Cooperative (inancin! Administration decision
17
and "hy the ob2ection
of private respondents "ith its overtones of the distinction bet"een constituent
and ministrant functions of !overnments as set forth in Bacani v. National
Coconut Corporation
1/
if futile. The irrelevance of such a distinction considerin!
the needs of the times "as clearly pointed out by the present Chief 'ustice, "ho
too& note, spea&in! of the reconstituted A!ricultural Credit Administration, that
functions of that sort )may not be strictly "hat President 5ilson described as
)constituent) @as distin!uished from )ministrant)A,such as those relatin! to the
maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those re!ulatin! property and
property ri!hts, those relatin! to the administration of 2ustice and the
determination of political duties of citi1ens, and those relatin! to national defense
and forei!n relations. Cnder this traditional classification, such constituent
functions are e#ercised by the =tate as attributes of soverei!nty, and not merely
to promote the "elfare, pro!ress and prosperity of the people 3 these latter
functions bein! ministrant, the e#ercise of "hich is optional on the part of the
!overnment.)
19
Nonetheless, as he e#plained so persuasively? )The !ro"in!
comple#ities of modern society, ho"ever, have rendered this traditional
classification of the functions of !overnment $uite unrealistic, not to say obsolete.
The areas "hich used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and "hich the
!overnment "as called upon to enter optionally, and only )because it "as better
e$uipped to administer for the public "elfare than is any private individual or
!roup of individuals), continue to lose their "ell3defined boundaries and to be
absorbed "ithin activities that the !overnment must underta&e in its soverei!n
capacity if it is to meet the increasin! social challen!es of the times. 4ere as
almost every"here else the tendency is undoubtedly to"ards a !reater
sociali1ation of economic forces. 4ere of course this development "as envisioned,
indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of
principle concernin! the promotion of social 2ustice.)
20
Thus "as laid to rest the
doctrine in Bacani v. ational Coconut Corporation,
21
based on the 5ilsonian
classification of the tas&s incumbent on !overnment into constituent and
ministrant in accordance "ith the laissez faire principle. That concept, then
dominant in economics, "as carried into the !overnmental sphere, as noted in a
te#tboo& on political science,
22
the first edition of "hich "as published in +D,D,
its author bein! the then Professor, later American President, 5oodro" 5ilson. 4e
too& pains to emphasi1e that "hat "as cate!ori1ed by him as constituent
functions had its basis in a reco!nition of "hat "as demanded by the )strictest
*concept of/ laissez faire, *as they/ are indeed the very bonds of society.)
23
The
other functions he "ould minimi1e as ministrant or
optional.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
t is a matter of la" that in the Philippines, the laissez faire principle hardly
commanded the authoritative position "hich at one time it held in the Cnited
=tates. As early as +,+,, 'ustice Malcolm in Rubi v. Provincial Board
2-
could
affirm? )The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the
individual, as a#ioms of economic and political theory, are of the past. The
modern period has sho"n a "idespread belief in the amplest possible
demonstration of !overnment activity.)
25
The +,-. Constitution, as "as indicated
earlier, continued that approach. As noted in !du v. !ricta?
2.
)5hat is more, to
erase any doubts, the Constitutional Convention sa" to it that the concept of
laissez"faire "as re2ected. t entrusted to our !overnment the responsibility of
copin! "ith social and economic problems "ith the commensurate po"er of
control over economic affairs. Thereby it could live up to its commitment to
promote the !eneral "elfare throu!h state action.)
27
Nor did the opinion in Edu
stop there? )To repeat, our Constitution "hich too& effect in +,-. erased
"hatever doubts there mi!ht be on that score. ts philosophy is a repudiation of
laissez"faire. 6ne of the leadin! members of the Constitutional Convention,
Manuel A. Ro#as, later the first President of the Republic, made it clear "hen he
disposed of the ob2ection of 7ele!ate 'ose Reyes of =orso!on, "ho noted the
)vast e#tensions in the sphere of !overnmental functions) and the )almost
unlimited po"er to interfere in the affairs of industry and a!riculture as "ell as to
compete "ith e#istin! business) as )reflections of the fascination e#erted by *the
then/ current tendencies> in other 2urisdictions. 4e spo&e thus? )My ans"er is that
this constitution has a definite and "ell defined philosophy, not only political but
social and economic.... f in this Constitution the !entlemen "ill find declarations
of economic policy they are there because they are necessary to safe!uard the
interest and "elfare of the (ilipino people because "e believe that the days have
come "hen in self3defense, a nation may provide in its constitution those
safe!uards, the patrimony, the freedom to !ro", the freedom to develop national
aspirations and national interests, not to be hampered by the artificial boundaries
"hich a constitutional provision automatically imposes.)
2/
chanrobles virtual la"
library
t "ould be then to re2ect "hat "as so emphatically stressed in the A!ricultural
Credit Administration decision about "hich the observation "as earlier made that
it reflected the philosophy of the +,-. Constitution and is even more in
consonance "ith the e#panded role of !overnment accorded reco!nition in the
present Charter if the plea of petitioner that it dischar!es !overnmental function
"ere not heeded. That path this Court is not prepared to ta&e. That "ould be to
!o bac&"ard, to retreat rather than to advance. Nothin! can thus be clearer than
that there is no constitutional obstacle to a !overnment pursuin! lines of
endeavor, formerly reserved for private enterprise. This is one "ay, in the
lan!ua!e of 0as&i, by "hich throu!h such activities, )the harsh contract "hich
*does/ obtain bet"een the levels of the rich and the poor) may be minimi1ed.
29
t
is a response to a trend noted by 'ustice 0aurel in Calalang v. #illiams
30
for the
humani1ation of la"s and the promotion of the interest of all component elements
of society so that man>s innate aspirations, in "hat "as so felicitously termed by
the (irst 0ady as )a compassionate society) be attained.
31
chanrobles virtual la"
library
8. The success that attended the efforts of petitioner to be ad2ud!ed as
performin! !overnmental rather than proprietary functions cannot militate a!ainst
respondent Court assumin! 2urisdiction over this labor dispute. =o it "as
mentioned earlier. As far bac& as $abora v. %ontelibano,
32
this Court, spea&in!
throu!h 'ustice Padilla, declared? The NARC "as established by the Eovernment
to protect the people a!ainst e#cessive or unreasonable rise in the price of cereals
by unscrupulous dealers. 5ith that main ob2ective there is no reason "hy its
function should not be deemed !overnmental. The Eovernment o"es its very
e#istence to that aim and purpose 3 to protect the people.)
33
n a subse$uent
case, aric #or&er's Union v. (on. Alvendia,
3-
decided four years later, this
Court, relyin! on P)ilippine Association of Free *abor Unions v. $an,
35
"hich
specified the cases "ithin the e#clusive 2urisdiction of the Court of ndustrial
Relations, included amon! "hich is one that involves hours of employment under
the Ei!ht34our 0abor 0a", ruled that it is precisely respondent Court and not
ordinary courts that should pass upon that particular labor controversy. (or
'ustice '. B. 0. Reyes, the ponente, the fact that there "ere 2udicial as "ell as
administrative and e#ecutive pronouncements to the effect that the Naric "as
performin! !overnmental functions did not suffice to confer competence on the
then respondent 'ud!e to issue a preliminary in2unction and to entertain a
complaint for dama!es, "hich as pointed out by the labor union, "as connected
"ith an unfair labor practice. This is emphasi1ed by the dispositive portion of the
decision? )5herefore, the restrainin! orders complained of, dated May +,, +,.D
and May 8<, +,.D, are set aside, and the complaint is ordered dismissed, "ithout
pre2udice to the National Rice and Corn Corporation>s see&in! "hatever remedy it
is entitled to in the Court of ndustrial Relations.)
3.
Then, too, in a case involvin!
petitioner itself, Philippine %ir!inia Tobacco Administration,
37
"here the point in
dispute "as "hether it "as respondent Court or a court of first instance that is
possessed of competence in a declaratory relief petition for the interpretation of a
collective bar!ainin! a!reement, one that could readily be thou!ht of as
pertainin! to the 2udiciary, the ans"er "as that )unless the la" spea&s clearly and
une$uivocally, the choice should fall on the Court of ndustrial Relations.)
3/

Reference to a number of decisions "hich reco!ni1ed in the then respondent
Court the 2urisdiction to determine labor controversies by !overnment3o"ned or
controlled corporations lends to support to such an approach.
39
Nor could it be
e#plained only on the assumption that proprietary rather than !overnmental
functions did call for such a conclusion. t is to be admitted that such a vie" "as
not previously bereft of plausibility. 5ith the aforecited A!ricultural Credit and
Cooperative (inancin! Administration decision renderin! obsolete the Bacani
doctrine, it has, to use a 5ilsonian phrase, no" lapsed into )innocuous
desuetude.)
-0
Respondent Court clearly "as vested "ith
2urisdiction.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-. The contention of petitioner that the Ei!ht34our 0abor 0a"
-1
does not apply to
it hardly deserves any e#tended consideration. There is an air of casualness in the
"ay such an ar!ument "as advanced in its petition for revie" as "ell as in its
brief. n both pleadin!s, it devoted less than a full pa!e to its discussion. There is
much to be said for brevity, but not in this case. =uch a terse and summary
treatment appears to be a reflection more of the inherent "ea&ness of the plea
rather than the possession of an advocate>s enviable talent for concision. t did
cite =ection 8 of the Act, but its very lan!ua!e leaves no doubt that )it shall apply
to all persons employed in any industry or occupation, "hether public or
private ... .)
-2
Nor are private respondents included amon! the employees "ho
are thereby barred from en2oyin! the statutory benefits. t cited %arcelo v.
P)ilippine ational Red Cross
-3
and Bo+ ,couts of t)e P)ilippines v. Araos.
--

Certainly, the activities to "hich the t"o above public corporations devote
themselves can easily be distin!uished from that en!a!ed in by petitioner. A
reference to the pertinent sections of both Republic Acts 88:. and 8+.. on "hich
it relies to obtain a rulin! as to its !overnmental character should render clear the
differentiation that e#ists. f as a result of the appealed order, financial burden
"ould have to be borne by petitioner, it has only itself to blame. t need not have
re$uired private respondents to render overtime service. t can hardly be
surmised that one of its chief problems is paucity of personnel. That "ould indeed
be a cause for astonishment. t "ould appear, therefore, that such an ob2ection
based on this !round certainly cannot suffice for a reversal. To repeat, respondent
Court must be sustained.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
54ERE(6RE, the appealed 6rder of March 8+, +,<9 and the Resolution of
respondent Court en banc of May D, +,<9 denyin! a motion for reconsideration
are hereby affirmed. The last sentence of the 6rder of March 8+, +,<9 reads as
follo"s? )To find ho" much each of them *private respondents/ is entitled under
this 2ud!ment, the Chief of the E#aminin! 7ivision, or any of his authori1ed
representative, is hereby directed to ma&e a ree#amination of records, papers
and documents in the possession of respondent P%TA pertinent and proper under
the premises and to submit his report of his findin!s to the Court for further
disposition thereof.) Accordin!ly, as provided by the Ne" 0abor Code, this case is
referred to the National 0abor Relations Commission for further proceedin!s
conformably to la". No costs.
%a&alintal- C...- Castro- Barredo- Antonio- !sguerra- A/uino- Concepcion .r. and
%artin- ...- concur.c)anroblesvirtualla0librar+ c)anrobles virtual la0 librar+
%a&asiar- %u1oz Palma- ...- too& no part.c)anroblesvirtualla0librar+ c)anrobles
virtual la0 librar+
$ee)an&ee ..- is on leave.
Endnotes:
+ 038+;D;, November 8,, +,:,, -9 =CRA :;,.chanroblesvirtualla"library
chanrobles virtual la" library
8 Alalayan v. National Po"er Corporation, 038;-,:, 'uly 8,, +,:D, 8; =CRA +<8,
+D8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
- t suffices to note the more detailed provisions on social 2ustice and protection
to labor in Article of the Constitution and the cate!orical re$uirement in =ection
+8 of Article F% that the =tate )formulate and implement an a!rarian reform
pro!ram aimed at emancipatin! the tenant from the bonda!e of the soil and
achievin! the !oals enunciated in this Constitution.) chanrobles virtual la" library
; Cf. 0as&i, The =tate in Theory and Practice 8:,
@+,-.A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
. Com. Act No. ;;; @+,-,A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la"
library
: Cf. Petition, par. %.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
< Cf. 2bid, par. %, chanrobles virtual la" library
D Cf. lbid, par. %.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
, Cf. 2bid, par. F.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
+9 Cf. 2bid, pars F3F.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
++ Common"ealth Act No. ;;; as amended by the Ei!ht34our 0abor 0a". t "as
approved on 'une 89, +,.,.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la"
library
+8 t "as approved and too& effect on 'une +,, +,.,.chanroblesvirtualla"library
chanrobles virtual la" library
+- Common"ealth Act No. 88:., =ection 8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles
virtual la" library
+; t "as approved and too& effect on 'une 89, +,:;.chanroblesvirtualla"library
chanrobles virtual la" library
+. Republic Act No. ;+.., =ection +.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual
la" library
+: 2bid, =ection 8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
+< 038+;D;, November 8,, +,:,, -9 =CRA :;,.chanroblesvirtualla"library
chanrobles virtual la" library
+D +99 Phil. ;:D @+,.:A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
+, -9 =CRA :;,, ::+3::8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la"
library
89 2bid, ::8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8+ +99 Phil. ;:D @+,.:A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
88 The =tate @+D,DA.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8- 2bid, ;8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8; -, Phil. ::9.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8. 2bid, <+<3<+D.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8: 03-89,:, 6ctober 8;, +,<9, -. =CRA ;D+.chanroblesvirtualla"library
chanrobles virtual la" library
8< 2bid, ;,+.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8D 2bid, ;,+3;,8.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
8, 0as&i, op. cit, <..chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-9 <9 Phil. <8: @+,;9A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-+ Cf. Philippine Air 0ines, nc. v. Philippine Air 0ines Employees Association, 03
8;:8:, 'une 8D, +,<;, .< =CRA ;D, and Almira v. B. (. Eoodrich Philippines, nc.,
03-;,<;, 'uly 8., +,<;, .D =CRA +89.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles
virtual la" library
-8 ,D Phil. D99 @+,.:A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-- 2bid, D9:.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-; +9< Phil. ;9; @+,:9A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-. ,, Phil. D.; @+,.:A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-: 2bid, ;++.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-< Philippine %ir!inia Tobacco Administration v. 'ud!e 4onorato B. Masa&ayan, 03
8,.-D, November 8,, +,<8, ;D =CRA +D<.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles
virtual la" library
-D 2bid, +,+.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
-, Cf. Price =tabili1ation Corp. v. Court of ndustrial Relations, 03+;:+-, Nov. -9,
+,:8, : =CRA <;.B National 7evelopment Co. v. Court of ndustrial Relations, 03
+.;88, Nov. -9, +,:8, : =CRA <:-B Manila Railroad Co. v. Court of ndustrial
Relations, 03+D-D,, 'an. -+, +,:-, < =CRA +<;B nsular =u!ar Refinin! Corp. v.
Court of ndustrial Relations, 03+,8;<, May -+, +,:-, D =CRA 8<9B National
=hipyards and =teel Corp. v. Court of ndustrial Relations, 03+<D<;, Au!. -+,
+,:-, D =CRA <D+B Manila Railroad Co. v. Court of ndustrial Relations, 03+<D<+,
'an. -+, +,:;, +9 =CRA +89B National 5ater"or&s and =e"era!e Authority v.
N5=A Consolidated Cnions, 03+D,-D, Au!. -+, +,:;, ++ =CRA <::B National
=hipyards and =teel Corporation v. Court of ndustrial Relations, 0389D-D, 'uly -9,
+,:., +; =CRA <..B Eovernment =ervice nsurance =ystem v. 6lase, 03+,,DD,
'an. ., +,:<, +, =CRA +B National =hipyards and =teel Corporation v. Court of
ndustrial Relations, 038+:<., May 8-, +,:<, 89 =CRA +-;B National 5ater"or&s
and =e"era!e Authority v. N5=A Consolidated Cnion, 038:D,;, (eb. 8D, +,:,, 8<
=CRA 88<B A!ricultural Credit and Cooperative (inancin! Administration v.
Confederation of Cnions, 038+;D;, Nov. 8,, +,:,, -9 =CRA :;,B National Po"er
Corporation v. National Po"er Corporation Employees and 5or&ers Association 03
8:+:,, 'une -9, +,<9, -- =CRA D9:B Philippine Charity ="eepsta&es Employees
Association v. Court of ndustrial Relations, 03-;:DD, Au!. -9, +,<8 ;: =CRA <.;B
National 5ater"or&s and =e"era!e Authority v. N5=A Consolidated Cnion, 03
-89+,, 6ct. 8:, +,<-, .- =CRA ;-8. .chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles
virtual la" library
;9 There are overtones of the Bacani doctrine in === Employees Association v.
=oriano, 03+D9D+, November +D, +,:-, , =CRA .++ and E== v. E== Employees
Association, 03+<+D., (ebruary 8D, +,:;, +9 =CRA 8:,. t should be obvious that
to the e#tent that they relied on the distinction bet"een constituent and
ministrant functions, they are no", in the lan!ua!e of (ran&furter, )derelicts in
the sea of constitutional la".) chanrobles virtual la" library
;+ Common"ealth Act No. ;;;.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la"
library
;8 The relevant portion of =ection 8 of Com. Act No. ;;; reads as follo"s? )This
Act shall apply to all persons employed in any industry or occupation, "hether
public or private, "ith the e#ception of farm laborers, laborers "ho prefer to be
paid on piece "or& basis, mana!erial employees, outside sales personnel,
domestic servants, persons in the personal service of another and members of
the family of the employer "or&in! for him.) chanrobles virtual la" library
;- +9+ Phil. .;. @+,.<A.chanroblesvirtualla"library chanrobles virtual la" library
;; +98 Phil. +9D9 @+,.DA.