Mwss Vs Hernandez

Page | 1
G.R. No. 71818 August 19, 1986

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS), petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO S. HERNANDEZ, Labor Arbiter, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LEMUEL B. ALEGADO,
DANILO S. LOPEZ, FORTUNATO L. MADRONA, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
Ariel F. Aguirre for petitioner.
Celso A. Fernandez for private respondents.

NARVASA, J .:
Petitioner Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was haled before the Arbitration Branch, National Capital
Region of the National Labor Relations Commission on charges of willfull failure to pay wage differentials, allowances and other
monetary benefits to its contractual employees numbering 2,500 or so.
1
In answer, MWSS assessed that:
(1) it "is a government-owned and controlled corporation and therefore ... (the NLRC) has no jurisdiction over
the ... case", and (2) assuming the contrary arguendo, "the terms and conditions of the complainants who are all
contractual employees are governed by their respective contracts.
2

On June 5, 1985, judgment was rendered by the labor Arbiter to whom the case was assigned, adverse to MWSS. As regards the
claim of MWSS of lack of jurisdiction in the NLRC over the case, the Arbiter made the following observations:
... This Commission agree (sic) with the respondent that if the complainants are regular employees of MWSS, it
being a government owned and controlled corporation, said employees are within the mantle of the civil service
rules and regulations, their salaries are standardized by the National Assembly, then this Commission has no
jurisdiction in the case.
3
... (But an examination of the records shows) ... that complainants are not a regular
employee of the respondent MWSS, but one of a hired workers or employees for limited period, that is upon
completion of the project for which they were hired, they can be removed by the respondent, because there is
no more work or the contract has already been terminated (Sic).
4

The proferred deduction: while controversies respecting terms and conditions of employment between MWSS and its regular
employees are not within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, said controversies do fall within the competence of the NLRC if they
involve non-regular or contractual employees of the MWSS.
Anent the second argument of MWSS which the Arbiter understands to be "that the contract of employment by the complainants ...
is governed by their contract, (and) it is therefore incumbent for the respondent
5
to be governed and to comply with their
contract,
6
he has this to say:
Respondent (MWSS) is citing Article 277 of the Labor Code to vouchsafe (sic) its contention about the lack of
jurisdiction of the NLRC. The provision, however, refers to the governance of the Civil Service Law vis-a-vis the
terms and conditions of government employees, those of government corporations included. The complaint is
not such a case as it is for monetary claims about which the Civil Service Decree, PD 807 does not provide. In
fact, the last provision of Article 277 shows the ever protection (sic) by the State through the Code of the
workers' right to due wages and other benefits by enjoining not to reduce the privileges being enjoyed by
workers at the time of the adoption of the Code.
7

The propounded deduction: The Civil Service Decree applies to employees in government corporations in all matters except
"monetary claims"; as regards the latter, it is the Labor Code that governs.
It is to invalidate the decision of the Labor Arbiter as well as a subsequent order directing execution thereof
8
and all other
proceedings in the case
9
that MWSS has come to this Court on certiorari and prohibition.
Evidently, the case turns upon the question: Are employees of the MWSS covered by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations
governing the civil service?
That question, framed in Identical terms save only that it had reference to another entity, the National Housing Corporation, has
already been answered by this Court. In National Housing Corporation vs. Juco,
10
this Court ruled that

Page | 2
1) "The NHC is a one hundred percent (100%) government-owned corporation ...;
11

2) "There should no longer be any question at this time that employees of goverment-owned or controlled
corporations are governed by the civil service law and civil service rules and regulation ";
12
and
3) "The decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the case (filed against the NHC by an employee) for lack of
jurisdiction" was correct.
13

Now, the character of the MWSS as a government-owned or controlled corporation is not contested; it is, in any case, a proposition
that cannot be gainsaid. Republic Act No. 6234 created it as a "government corporation to be known as the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System." As in the case of the National Housing Authority, therefore, employment in the MWSS is
governed not by the Labor Code but by the civil service law, rules and regulations; and controversies arising from or connected with
that employment are not cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission.
The argument of the Labor Arbiter that it is only disputes between the MWSS and its regular employees that are beyond the
jurisdiction of the NLRC, not those between it and its "non-regular or contractual" employees, is sophistical. There is no legal or
logical justification for such a distinction. Indeed, it is ruled out by the fact that positions in the civil service are classified into career
and non-career service,
14
and that the non-career service includes inter alia-
... Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special
contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skin not available in the employing
agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or
accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision
from the hiring agency.
15

The Labor Arbiter's other postulation, that the Civil Service Law governs employment in the MWSS in all aspect except "monetary
claims," and that as to the latter, it is the Labor Code that applies, is even more patently illogical and deserves no confutation.
But even more fallacious, almost unintelligible, is private respondents' contention that they "are not employees of Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)";
16
and "not being employees of the petitioner ... (MWSS) ... this case therefore lies
within the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) through Arbiter Bienvenido Hernandez."
17
Such a contention also does not
merit refutation As absurd and as undeserving of response, too, is the claim that "Existence of employer-employee relationship
(between the MWSS and an individual) is not per se equivalent to being a government employee."
18

Arguments such as these, and the fractured syntax by which they are tendered, should really have no place in a judicial record.
They cannot persuade; they do but irritate. What is worse, they produce much waste of valuable time. They are symptomatic of
defects in the training and appointing processes which must be remedied.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated June 5, 1985 and his Order of July 8, 1985, having been rendered without
jurisdiction, are hereby declared void and set aside. Said Labor Arbiter is enjoined to take no further action on Case No. NCR-9-
3164-84 save to dismiss the same. Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Feria, Yap, Fernan, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz and Paras, JJ., concur.

Mwss Vs Hernandez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mwss Vs Hernandez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mwss Vs Hernandez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page | 1

G.R. No. 71818 August 19, 1986

You might also like