Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

85279 July 28, 1989 SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA), IONISION T. !AYLON, RAMON MO ESTO, JUANITO MA URA, REU!EN "AMORA, #IRGILIO E AL AY, SERGIO ARANETA, PLACI O AGUSTIN, #IRGILIO MAGPAYO, petitioner, vs. T$E COURT O% APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), $ON. CE"AR C. PERALEJO, RTC, !RANC$ 98, &UE"ON CITY, respondents. Vicente T. Ocampo & Associates for petitioners.

CORTES, J: Primarily, the issue raised in this petition is whether or not the Regional Trial Court can enjoin the Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA !rom stri"ing and order the stri"ing employees to return to wor". Collaterally, it is whether or not employees o! the Social Security System (SSS have the right to stri"e. The antecedents are as !ollows# $n %une &&, &'(), the SSS !iled with the Regional Trial Court o! *ue+on City a complaint !or damages with a prayer !or a writ o! preliminary injunction against petitioners, alleging that on %une ', &'(), the o!!icers and mem,ers o! SSSEA staged an illegal stri"e and ,aricaded the entrances to the SSS -uilding, preventing non.stri"ing employees !rom reporting !or wor" and SSS mem,ers !rom transacting ,usiness with the SSS/ that the stri"e was reported to the Pu,lic Sector 0a,or . 1anagement Council, which ordered the stri"ers to return to wor"/ that the stri"ers re!used to return to wor"/ and that the SSS su!!ered damages as a result o! the stri"e. The complaint prayed that a writ o! preliminary injunction ,e issued to enjoin the stri"e and that the stri"ers ,e ordered to return to wor"/ that the de!endants (petitioners herein ,e ordered to pay damages/ and that the stri"e ,e declared illegal. 2t appears that the SSSEA went on stri"e a!ter the SSS !ailed to act on the union3s demands, which included# implementation o! the provisions o! the old SSS.SSSEA collective ,argaining agreement (C-A on chec".o!! o! union dues/

payment o! accrued overtime pay, night di!!erential pay and holiday pay/ conversion o! temporary or contractual employees with si4 (5 months or more o! service into regular and permanent employees and their entitlement to the same salaries, allowances and ,ene!its given to other regular employees o! the SSS/ and payment o! the children3s allowance o! P67.77, and a!ter the SSS deducted certain amounts !rom the salaries o! the employees and allegedly committed acts o! discrimination and un!air la,or practices 8Rollo, pp. 9&.9:&;. The court a quo, on %une &&, &'(), issued a temporary restraining order pending resolution o! the application !or a writ o! preliminary injunction 8Rollo, p. )&.; 2n the meantime, petitioners !iled a motion to dismiss alleging the trial court3s lac" o! jurisdiction over the su,ject matter 8Rollo, pp. )9.(9.; To this motion, the SSS !iled an opposition, reiterating its prayer !or the issuance o! a writ o! injunction 8Rollo, pp. 97'.999;. $n %uly 99,&'(), in a !our.page order, the court a <uo denied the motion to dismiss and converted the restraining order into an injunction upon posting o! a ,ond, a!ter !inding that the stri"e was illegal 8Rollo, pp. (6. (5;. As petitioners3 motion !or the reconsideration o! the a!oresaid order was also denied on August &:, &'(( 8Rollo, p. ':;, petitioners !iled a petition !or certiorari and prohi,ition with preliminary injunction ,e!ore this Court. Their petition was doc"eted as =.R. >o. )'?)). 2n a resolution dated $cto,er 9&, &'(), the Court, through the Third @ivision, resolved to re!er the case to the Court o! Appeals. Petitioners !iled a motion !or reconsideration thereo!, ,ut during its pendency the Court o! Appeals on 1arch ',&'(( promulgated its decision on the re!erred case 8Rollo, pp. &67.&6);. Petitioners moved to recall the Court o! Appeals3 decision. 2n the meantime, the Court on %une 9',&'(( denied the motion !or reconsideration in =.R. >o. ')?)) !or ,eing moot and academic. Petitioners3 motion to recall the decision o! the Court o! Appeals was also denied in view o! this Court3s denial o! the motion !or reconsideration 8Rollo, pp. &:&. &:6;. Aence, the instant petition to review the decision o! the Court o! Appeals 8Rollo, pp. &9.6);. Bpon motion o! the SSS on Ce,ruary 5,&'(', the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the petitioners !rom staging another stri"e or !rom pursuing the notice o! stri"e they !iled with the @epartment o! 0a,or and Employment on %anuary 9?, &'(' and to maintain the status quo 8Rollo, pp. &?&. &?9;. The Court, ta"ing the comment as answer, and noting the reply and supplemental reply !iled ,y petitioners, considered the issues joined and the case su,mitted !or decision. The position o! the petitioners is that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated ,y the SSS and to issue the restraining order and the writ o! preliminary injunction, as jurisdiction lay with the @epartment o! 0a,or and Employment or the >ational 0a,or Relations Commission, since the case involves a la,or dispute.

$n the other hand, the SSS advances the contrary view, on the ground that the employees o! the SSS are covered ,y civil service laws and rules and regulations, not the 0a,or Code, there!ore they do not have the right to stri"e. Since neither the @$0E nor the >0RC has jurisdiction over the dispute, the Regional Trial Court may enjoin the employees !rom stri"ing. 2n dismissing the petition !or certiorari and prohi,ition with preliminary injunction !iled ,y petitioners, the Court o! Appeals held that since the employees o! the SSS, are government employees, they are not allowed to stri"e, and may ,e enjoined ,y the Regional Trial Court, which had jurisdiction over the SSS3 complaint !or damages, !rom continuing with their stri"e. Thus, the se<uential <uestions to ,e resolved ,y the Court in deciding whether or not the Court o! Appeals erred in !inding that the Regional Trial Court did not act without or in e4cess o! jurisdiction when it too" cogni+ance o! the case and enjoined the stri"e are as !ollows# &. @o the employees o! the SSS have the right to stri"eD 9. @oes the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the case initiated ,y the SSS and to enjoin the stri"ers !rom continuing with the stri"e and to order them to return to wor"D These shall ,e discussed and resolved seriatim 2 The &'() Constitution, in the Article on Social %ustice and Auman Rights, provides that the State Eshall guarantee the rights o! all wor"ers to sel!. organi+ation, collective ,argaining and negotiations, and peace!ul concerted activities, including the right to stri"e in accordance with lawE 8Art. F222, Sec. 6&;. -y itsel!, this provision would seem to recogni+e the right o! all wor"ers and employees, including those in the pu,lic sector, to stri"e. -ut the Constitution itsel! !ails to e4pressly con!irm this impression, !or in the Su,.Article on the Civil Service Commission, it provides, a!ter de!ining the scope o! the civil service as Eall ,ranches, su,divisions, instrumentalities, and agencies o! the =overnment, including government.owned or controlled corporations with original charters,E that E8t;he right to sel!.organi+ation shall not ,e denied to government employeesE 8Art. 2F(- , Sec. 9(l and (?7 ;. Parenthetically, the -ill o! Rights also provides that E8tlhe right o! the people, including those employed in the pu,lic and private sectors, to !orm unions, associations, or societies !or purposes not contrary to law shall not a,ridgedE 8Art. 222, Sec. (;. Thus, while there is no <uestion that the Constitution recogni+es the right o! government employees to organi+e, it is silent as to whether such recognition also includes the right to stri"e.

Resort to the intent o! the !ramers o! the organic law ,ecomes help!ul in understanding the meaning o! these provisions. A reading o! the proceedings o! the Constitutional Commission that dra!ted the &'() Constitution would show that in recogni+ing the right o! government employees to organi+e, the commissioners intended to limit the right to the !ormation o! unions or associations only, without including the right to stri"e. Thus, Commissioner Eulogio R. 0erum, one o! the sponsors o! the provision that E8tlhe right to sel!.organi+ation shall not ,e denied to government employeesE 8Art. 2F(- , Sec. 9(? ;, in answer to the apprehensions e4pressed ,y Commissioner Am,rosio -. Padilla, Gice.President o! the Commission, e4plained#
1R. 0ERB1. 2 thin" what 2 will try to say will not ta"e that long. Hhen we proposed this amendment providing !or sel!.organi+ation o! government employees, it does not mean that ,ecause they have the right to organi+e, they also have the right to stri"e. That is a di!!erent matter. He are only tal"ing a,out organi+ing, uniting as a union. Hith regard to the right to stri"e, everyone will remem,er that in the -ill o! Rights, there is a provision that the right to !orm associations or societies whose purpose is not contrary to law shall not ,e a,ridged. >ow then, i! the purpose o! the state is to prohi,it the stri"es coming !rom employees e4ercising government !unctions, that could ,e done ,ecause the moment that is prohi,ited, then the union which will go on stri"e will ,e an illegal union. And that provision is carried in Repu,lic Act ()?. 2n Repu,lic Act ()?, wor"ers, including those !rom the government.owned and controlled, are allowed to organi+e ,ut they are prohi,ited !rom stri"ing. So, the !ear o! our honora,le Gice. President is un!ounded. 2t does not mean that ,ecause we approve this resolution, it carries with it the right to stri"e. That is a di!!erent matter. As a matter o! !act, that su,ject is now ,eing discussed in the Committee on Social %ustice ,ecause we are trying to !ind a solution to this pro,lem. He "now that this pro,lem e4ist/ that the moment we allow any,ody in the government to stri"e, then what will happen i! the mem,ers o! the Armed Corces will go on stri"eD Hhat will happen to those people trying to protect usD So that is a matter o! discussion in the Committee on Social %ustice. -ut, 2 repeat, the right to !orm an organi+ation does not carry with it the right to stri"e. 8Record o! the Constitutional Commission, vol. &, p. ?5';.

2t will ,e recalled that the 2ndustrial Peace Act (R.A. >o. ()? , which was repealed ,y the 0a,or Code (P.@. ::9 in &'):, e4pressly ,anned stri"es ,y employees in the =overnment, including instrumentalities e4ercising governmental !unctions, ,ut e4cluding entities entrusted with proprietary !unctions#
.Sec. &&. Prohibition Against Strikes in the Government. The terms and conditions o! employment in the =overnment, including any political su,division or instrumentality thereo!, are governed ,y law and it is declared to ,e the policy o! this Act that employees therein shall not stri"e !or the purpose o! securing changes or modi!ication in their terms and conditions o! employment. Such employees may ,elong to any la,or organi+ation which does not impose the o,ligation to stri"e or to join in stri"e# Provided ho!ever, That this section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental !unctions and not those

employed in proprietary !unctions o! the =overnment including ,ut not limited to governmental corporations.

>o similar provision is !ound in the 0a,or Code, although at one time it recogni+ed the right o! employees o! government corporations esta,lished under the Corporation Code to organi+e and ,argain collectively and those in the civil service to E!orm organi+ations !or purposes not contrary to lawE 8Art. 9::, ,e!ore its amendment ,y -.P. -lg. )7 in &'(7;, in the same ,reath it provided that E8t;he terms and conditions o! employment o! all government employees, including employees o! government owned and controlled corporations, shall ,e governed ,y the Civil Service 0aw, rules and regulationsE 8now Art. 9)5;. Bnderstanda,ly, the 0a,or Code is silent as to whether or not government employees may stri"e, !or such are e4cluded !rom its coverage 8"bid;. -ut then the Civil Service @ecree 8P.@. >o. (7);, is e<ually silent on the matter. $n %une &, &'(), to implement the constitutional guarantee o! the right o! government employees to organi+e, the President issued E.$. >o. &(7 which provides guidelines !or the e4ercise o! the right to organi+e o! government employees. 2n Section &: thereo!, it is provided that E8t;he Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and stri"es in the government service shall ,e o,served, su,ject to any legislation that may ,e enacted ,y Congress.E The President was apparently re!erring to 1emorandum Circular >o. 5, s. &'() o! the Civil Service Commission under date April 9&, &'() which, Eprior to the enactment ,y Congress o! applica,le laws concerning stri"e ,y government employees ... enjoins under pain o! administrative sanctions, all government o!!icers and employees !rom staging stri"es, demonstrations, mass leaves, wal". outs and other !orms o! mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption o! pu,lic service.E The air was thus cleared o! the con!usion. At present, in the a,sence o! any legislation allowing government employees to stri"e, recogni+ing their right to do so, or regulating the e4ercise o! the right, they are prohi,ited !rom stri"ing, ,y e4press provision o! 1emorandum Circular >o. 5 and as implied in E.$. >o. &(7. 8At this juncture, it must ,e stated that the validity o! 1emorandum Circular >o. 5 is not at issue;. -ut are employees o! the SSS covered ,y the prohi,ition against stri"esD The Court is o! the considered view that they are. Considering that under the &'() Constitution E8t;he civil service em,races all ,ranches, su,divisions, instrumentalities, and agencies o! the =overnment, including government.owned or controlled corporations with original chartersE 8Art. 2F(- , Sec. .9(l see also Sec. & o! E.$. >o. &(7 where the employees in the civil service are denominated as Egovernment employeesE; and that the SSS is one such government. controlled corporation with an original charter, having ,een created under R.A. >o. &&5&, its employees are part o! the civil service 8>ASEC$ v. >0RC, =.R. >os. 5'()7 I )79'?, >ovem,er 9:,&'((; and are covered ,y the Civil Service Commission3s memorandum prohi,iting stri"es. This ,eing the case, the stri"e staged ,y the employees o! the SSS was illegal.

The statement o! the Court in A##iance of Government $orkers v. %inister of &abor and 'mp#o(ment 8=.R. >o. 57:76, August 6, &#'(6, &9: SCRA && is relevant as it !urnishes the rationale !or distinguishing ,etween wor"ers in the private sector and government employees with regard to the right to stri"e#
The general rule in the past and up to the present is that 3the terms and conditions o! employment in the =overnment, including any political su,division or instrumentality thereo! are governed ,y lawE (Section &&, the 2ndustrial Peace Act, R.A. >o. ()?, as amended and Article 9)), the 0a,or Code, P.@. >o. ::9, as amended . Since the terms and conditions of government emp#o(ment are fi)ed b( #a! government !orkers cannot use the same !eapons emp#o(ed b( !orkers in the private sector to secure concessions from their emp#o(ers. The principle ,ehind la,or unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot ,e secured through compulsion ,y law. Relations ,etween private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary ,asis. Su,ject to the minimum re<uirements o! wage laws and other la,or and wel!are legislation, the terms and conditions o! employment in the unioni+ed private sector are settled through the process o! collective ,argaining. 2n government employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads o! government which !i4 the terms and conditions o! employment. And this is e!!ected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through collective ,argaining agreements. 8At p. &6/ Emphasis supplied;.

Apropos is the o,servation o! the Acting Commissioner o! Civil Service, in his position paper su,mitted to the &')& Constitutional Convention, and <uoted with approval ,y the Court in A##iance, to wit#
2t is the stand, there!ore, o! this Commission that ,y reason o! the nature o! the pu,lic employer and the peculiar character o! the pu,lic service, it must necessarily regard the right to stri"e given to unions in private industry as not applying to pu,lic employees and civil service employees. 2t has ,een stated that the =overnment, in contrast to the private employer, protects the interest o! all people in the pu,lic service, and that accordingly, such con!licting interests as are present in private la,or relations could not e4ist in the relations ,etween government and those whom they employ. 8At pp. &5.&)/ also <uoted in >ational Aousing Corporation v. %uco, =.R. >o. 5:6&6, %anuary &),&'(?,&6: SCRA &)9,&)(.&)';.

E.$. >o. &(7, which provides guidelines !or the e4ercise o! the right to organi+e o! government employees, while clinging to the same philosophy, has, however, rela4ed the rule to allow negotiation where the terms and conditions o! employment involved are not among those !i4ed ,y law. Thus#
.SECT2$> &6. Terms and conditions o! employment or improvements thereo!, e4cept those that are !i4ed ,y law, may ,e the su,ject o! negotiations ,etween duly recogni+ed employees3 organi+ations and appropriate government authorities.

The same e4ecutive order has also provided !or the general mechanism !or the settlement o! la,or disputes in the pu,lic sector to wit#

.SECT2$> &5. The Civil Service and la,or laws and procedures, whenever applica,le, shall ,e !ollowed in the resolution o! complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees. 2n case any dispute remains unresolved a!ter e4hausting all the availa,le remedies under e4isting laws and procedures, the parties may jointly re!er the dispute to the 8Pu,lic Sector 0a,or. 1anagement; Council !or appropriate action.

=overnment employees may, there!ore, through their unions or associations, either petition the Congress !or the ,etterment o! the terms and conditions o! employment which are within the am,it o! legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government agencies !or the improvement o! those which are not !i4ed ,y law. 2! there ,e any unresolved grievances, the dispute may ,e re!erred to the Pu,lic Sector 0a,or . 1anagement Council !or appropriate action. -ut employees in the civil service may not resort to stri"es, wal".outs and other temporary wor" stoppages, li"e wor"ers in the private sector, to pressure the =ovemment to accede to their demands. As now provided under Sec. :, Rule 222 o! the Rules and Regulations to =overn the E4ercise o! the Right o! =overnment. Employees to Sel!. $rgani+ation, which too" e!!ect a!ter the instant dispute arose, E8t;he terms and conditions o! employment in the government, including any political su,division or instrumentality thereo! and government. owned and controlled corporations with original charters are governed ,y law and employees therein shall not stri"e !or the purpose o! securing changes thereo!.E 22 The stri"e staged ,y the employees o! the SSS ,elonging to petitioner union ,eing prohi,ited ,y law, an injunction may ,e issued to restrain it. 2t is !utile !or the petitioners to assert that the su,ject la,or dispute !alls within the e4clusive jurisdiction o! the >0RC and, hence, the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ o! injunction enjoining the continuance o! the stri"e. The 0a,or Code itsel! provides that terms and conditions o! employment o! government employees shall ,e governed ,y the Civil Service 0aw, rules and regulations 8Art. 9)5;. 1ore importantly, E.$. >o. &(7 vests the Pu,lic Sector 0a,or . 1anagement Council with jurisdiction over unresolved la,or disputes involving government employees 8Sec. &5;. Clearly, the >0RC has no jurisdiction over the dispute. This ,eing the case, the Regional Trial Court was not precluded, in the e4ercise o! its general jurisdiction under -.P. -lg. &9', as amended, !rom assuming jurisdiction over the SSS3s complaint !or damages and issuing the injunctive writ prayed !or therein. Bnli"e the >0RC, the Pu,lic Sector 0a,or . 1anagement Council has not ,een granted ,y law authority to issue writs o! injunction in la,or disputes within its jurisdiction. Thus, since it is the Council, and not the >0RC, that has jurisdiction over the instant la,or dispute, resort to the general courts o! law !or the issuance o! a writ o! injunction to enjoin the stri"e is appropriate.

>either could the court a quo ,e accused o! imprudence or over+ealousness, !or in !act it had proceeded with caution. Thus, a!ter issuing a writ o! injunction enjoining the continuance o! the stri"e to prevent any !urther disruption o! pu,lic service, the respondent judge, in the same order, admonished the parties to re!er the unresolved controversies emanating !rom their employer. employee relationship to the Pu,lic Sector 0a,or . 1anagement Council !or appropriate action 8Rollo, p. (5;. 222 2n their EPetitionJApplication !or Preliminary and 1andatory 2njunction,E and reiterated in their reply and supplemental reply, petitioners allege that the SSS unlaw!ully withheld ,onuses and ,ene!its due the individual petitioners and they pray that the Court issue a writ o! preliminary prohi,itive and mandatory injunction to restrain the SSS and its agents !rom withholding payment thereo! and to compel the SSS to pay them. 2n their supplemental reply, petitioners anne4ed an order o! the Civil Service Commission, dated 1ay ?, &'(', which ruled that the o!!icers o! the SSSEA who are not preventively suspended and who are reporting !or wor" pending the resolution o! the administrative cases against them are entitled to their salaries, year.end ,onuses and other !ringe ,ene!its and a!!irmed the previous order o! the 1erit Systems Promotion -oard. The matter ,eing e4traneous to the issues elevated to this Court, it is $ur view that petitioners3 remedy is not to petition this Court to issue an injunction, ,ut to cause the e4ecution o! the a!oresaid order, i! it has already ,ecome !inal. HAEREC$RE, no reversi,le error having ,een committed ,y the Court o! Appeals, the instant petition !or review is here,y @E>2E@ and the decision o! the appellate court dated 1arch ', &'(( in CA.=.R. SP >o. &6&'9 is ACC2R1E@. Petitioners3 EPetitionJApplication !or Preliminary and 1andatory 2njunctionE dated @ecem,er &6,&'(( is @E>2E@. S$ $R@ERE@. *ernan +.,. Gutierre- ,r. *e#iciano and .idin ,,. concur.