strikers to return to work; that the strikers refused to injunction before this Court.

Their petition was docketed

return to work; and that the SSS suffered damages as a as G.R. No. 79577. In a resolution dated October 21,
result of the strike. The complaint prayed that a writ of 1987, the Court, through the Third Division, resolved to
preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and refer the case to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners filed a
that the strikers be ordered to return to work; that the motion for reconsideration thereof, but during its
defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay pendency the Court of Appeals on March 9, 1988
damages; and that the strike be declared illegal. promulgated its decision on the referred case [Rollo, pp.
, HON. CEZAR C. PERALEJO RTC, BRANCH 98, 130-137]. Petitioners moved to recall the Court of
QUEZON CITY, respondents. Appeals' decision. In the meantime, the Court on June
29, 1988 denied the motion for reconsideration in G.R.
It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS
G.R. No. 85279 | 1989-07-28 No. 97577 for being moot and academic. Petitioners'
failed to act on the union's demands, which included:
motion to recall the decision of the Court of Appeals was
implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA
also denied in view of this Court's denial of the motion for
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on check-off of
reconsideration [Rollo, pp. 141-143]. Hence, the instant
union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night
petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
differential pay and holiday pay; conversion of temporary
DECISION [Rollo, pp. 12-37].
or contractual employees with six (6) months or more of
service into regular and permanent employees and their
entitlement to the same salaries, allowances and
CORTES, J.: benefits given to other regular employees of the SSS; Upon motion of the SSS on February 6, 1989, the Court
and payment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the
after the SSS deducted certain amounts from the petitioners from staging another strike or from pursuing
salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts the notice of strike they filed with the Department of Labor
Primarily, the issue raised in this petition is whether or not the
of discrimination and unfair labor practices [Rollo, pp. and Employment on January 25, 1989 and to maintain
Regional Trial Court can enjoin the Social Security System
21-24]. the status quo [Rollo, pp. 151-152].
Employees Association (SSSEA) from striking and order the striking
employees to return to work. Collaterally, it is whether or not
employees of the Social Security System (SSS) have the right to
strike. The court a quo, on June 11, 1987, issued a temporary The Court, taking the comment as answer, and noting the
restraining order pending resolution of the application for reply and supplemental reply filed by petitioners,
a writ of preliminary injunction [Rollo, p. 71.] In the considered the issues joined and the case submitted for
meantime, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging decision.
The antecedents are as follows:
the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
[Rollo, pp. 72-82.] To this motion, the SSS filed an
opposition, reiterating its prayer for the issuance of a writ
The position of the petitioners is that the Regional Trial
On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial Court of of injunction [Rollo, pp. 209-222]. On July 22, 1987, in a
Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the
Quezon City a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of four-page order, the court a quo denied the motion to
SSS and to issue the restraining order and the writ of
preliminary injunction against petitioners, alleging that on June 9, dismiss and converted the restraining order into an
preliminary injunction, as jurisdiction lay with the
1987, the officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike injunction upon posting of a bond, after finding that the
Department of Labor and Employment or the National
and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Building, preventing strike was illegal [Rollo, pp. 83-86]. As petitioners' motion
Labor Relations Commission, since the case involves a
non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS members for the reconsideration of the aforesaid order was also
labor dispute.
from transacting business with the SSS; that the strike was reported denied on August 14, 1988 [Rollo, p. 94], petitioners filed
to the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, which ordered the a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
On the other hand, the SSS advances the contrary view, on the and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
ground that the employees of the SSS are covered by civil service strike in accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. 3].
laws and rules and regulations, not the Labor Code, therefore they MR. LERUM. I think what I will try to say will not take that
do not have the right to strike. Since neither the DOLE nor the NLRC long. When we proposed this amendment providing for
has jurisdiction over the dispute, the Regional Trial Court may enjoin self-organization of government employees, it does not
By itself, this provision would seem to recognize the right mean that because they have the right to organize, they
the employees from striking.
of all workers and employees, including those in the also have the right to strike. That is a different matter. We
public sector, to strike. But the Constitution itself fails to are only talking about organizing, uniting as a union. With
expressly confirm this impression, for in the Sub-Article regard to the right to strike, everyone will remember that
In dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary on the Civil Service Commission, it provides, after in the Bill of Rights, there is a provision that the right to
injunction filed by petitioners, the Court of Appeals held that since the defining the scope of the civil service as "all branches, form associations or societies whose purpose is not
employees of the SSS, are government employees, they are not subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the contrary to law shall not be abridged. Now then, if the
allowed to strike, and may be enjoined by the Regional Trial Court, Government, including government-owned or controlled purpose of the state is to prohibit the strikes coming from
which had jurisdiction over the SSS' complaint for damages, from corporations with original charters," that "[t]he right to employees exercising government functions, that could
continuing with their strike. self-organization shall not be denied to government be done because the moment that is prohibited, then the
employees" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(1) and (50)]. union which will go on strike will be an illegal union. And
Parenthetically, the Bill of Rights also provides that "[t]he that provision is carried in Republic Act 875. In Republic
right of the people, including those employed in the Act 875, workers, including those from the
Thus, the sequential questions to be resolved by the Court in
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, government-owned and controlled, are allowed to
deciding whether or not the Court of Appeals erred is finding that the
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not organize but they are prohibited from striking. So, the fear
Regional Trial Court did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction
abridged" [Art. III, Sec. 8]. Thus, while there is no of our honorable Vice-President is unfounded. It does not
when it took cognizance of the case and enjoined the strike are as
question that the Constitution recognizes the right of mean that because we approve this resolution, it carries
follows:
government employees to organize, it is silent as to with it the right to strike. That is a different matter. As a
whether such recognition also includes the right to strike. matter of fact, that subject is now being discussed in the
Committee on Social Justice because we are trying to
1. Do the employees of the SSS have the right to strike?
find a solution to this problem. We know that this problem
Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law exists; that the moment we allow anybody in the
becomes helpful in understanding the meaning of these government to strike, then what will happen if the
2. Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the case provisions. A reading of the proceedings of the members of the Armed Forces will go on strike? What will
initiated by the SSS and to enjoin the strikers from continuing with the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 happen to those people trying to protect us? So that is a
strike and to order them to return to work? Constitution would show that in recognizing the right of matter of discussion in the Committee on Social Justice.
government employees to organize, the commissioners But, I repeat, the right to form an organization does not
intended to limit the right to the formation of unions or carry with it the right to strike. [Record of the
associations only, without including the right to strike. Constitutional Commission, vol. I, p. 569].
These shall be discussed and resolved seriatim.

Thus, Commissioner Eulogio R. Lerum, one of the It will be recalled that the Industrial Peace Act (C.A. No.
I
sponsors of the provision that "[t]he right to 875), which was repealed by the Labor Code (PAD. 442)
The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and Human self-organization shall not be denied to government in 1974, expressly banned strikes by employees in the
Rights, provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all employees" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(5)], in answer to the Government, including instrumentalities exercising
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, apprehensions expressed by Commissioner Ambrosio B. governmental functions, but excluding entities entrusted
Padilla, Vice-President of the Commission, explained: with proprietary functions:
 from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves,
walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will
Sec. 11. Prohibition Against Strikes in the Government. The terms result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public The general rule in the past and up to the present is that
and conditions of employment in the Government, including any service." The air was thus cleared of the confusion. At "the terms and conditions of employment in the
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, are governed by law present, in the absence of any legislation allowing Government, including any political subdivision or
and it is declared to be the policy of this Act that employees therein government employees to strike, recognizing their right instrumentality thereof are governed by law" (Section 11,
shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes or modification in to do so, or regulating the exercise of the right, they are the Industrial Peace Act, R.A. No. 875, as amended and
their terms and conditions of employment. Such employees may prohibited from striking, by express provision of Article 277, the Labor Code, P.D. No. 442, as amended).
belong to any labor organization which does not impose the Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied in E.O. No. Since the terms and conditions of government
obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided, however, That this 180. [At this juncture, it must be stated that the validity of employment are fixed by law, government workers
section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental Memorandum Circular No. 6 is not at issue]. cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in
functions and not those employed in proprietary functions of the the private sector to secure concessions from their
Government including but not limited to governmental corporations. employers. The principle behind labor unionism in private
industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured
But are employees of the SSS covered by the prohibition through compulsion by law. Relations between private
against strikes? employers and their employees rest on an essentially
No similar provision is found in the Labor Code, although at one time
voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of
it recognized the right of employees of government corporations
wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the
established under the Corporation Code to organize and bargain
The Court is of the considered view that they are. terms and conditions of employment in the unionized
collectively and those in the civil service to "form organizations for
Considering that under the 1987 Constitution "[t]he civil private sector are settled through the process of collective
purposes not contrary to law" [Art. 244, before its amendment by B.P.
service embraces all branches, subdivisions, bargaining. In government employment, however, it is the
Blg. 70 in 1980], in the same breath it provided that "[t]he terms and
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, legislature and, where properly given delegated power,
conditions of employment of all government employees, including
including government-owned or controlled corporations the administrative heads of government which fix the
employees of government owned and controlled corporations, shall
with original charters" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(1); see also terms and conditions of employment. And this is effected
be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations" [now
Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees in the civil through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and
Art. 276]. Understandably, the Labor Code is silent as to whether or
service are denominated as "government employees"] regulations, not through collective bargaining
not government employees may strike, for such are excluded from its
and that the SSS is one such government-controlled agreements. [At p. 13].
coverage [Ibid]. But then the Civil Service Decree [P.D. No. 807], is
equally silent on the matter. corporation with an original charter, having been created
under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are part of the civil
service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870 & 70295, Apropos is the observation of the Acting Commissioner of
November 24, 1988] and are covered by the Civil Civil Service, in his position paper submitted to the 1971
On June 1, 1987, to implement the constitutional guarantee of the Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. Constitutional Convention, and quoted with approval by
right of government employees to organize, the President issued This being the case, the strike staged by the employees the Court in Alliance, to wit:
E.O. No. 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to of the SSS was illegal.
organize of government employees. In Section 14 thereof, it is
provided that "[t]he Civil Service law and rules governing concerted
activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed, It is the stand, therefore, of this Commission that by
subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress." The The statement of the Court in Alliance of Government reason of the nature of the public employer and the
President was apparently referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment [G.R. No. peculiar character of the public service, it must
1987 of the Civil Service Commission under date April 21, 1987 60403, August 3, 1983, 124 SCRA 1] is relevant as it necessarily regard the right to strike given to unions in
which, "prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws furnishes the rationale for distinguishing between private industry as not applying to public employees and
concerning strike by government employees . . . enjoins under pain workers in the private sector and government employees civil service employees. It has been stated that the
of administrative sanctions, all government officers and employees with regard to the right to strike: Government, in contrast to the private employer, protects
the interest of all people in the public service, and that accordingly, unresolved grievances, the dispute may be referred to B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, from assuming jurisdiction
such conflicting interests as are present in private labor relations the Public Sector Labor-Management Council for over the SSS's complaint for damages and issuing the
could not exist in the relations between government and those whom appropriate action. But employees in the civil service injunctive writ prayed for therein. Unlike the NLRC, the
they employ. [At pp. 16-17; also quoted in National Housing may not resort to strikes, walkouts and other temporary Public Sector Labor-Management Council has not been
Corporation v. Juco, G.R. No. 64313 January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA work stoppages, like workers in the private sector, to granted by law authority to issue writs of injunction in
172, 178-179]. pressure the Government to accede to their demands. labor disputes within its jurisdiction. Thus, since it is the
As now provided under Sec. 4, Rule III of the Rules and Council, and not the NLRC, that has jurisdiction over the
Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of instant labor dispute, resort to the general courts of law
Government Employees to Self-Organization, which took for the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike
E.O. No. 180, which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right
effect after the instant dispute arose, "[t]he terms and is appropriate.
to organize of government employees, while clinging to the same
conditions of employment in the government, including
philosophy, has, however, relaxed the rule to allow negotiation where
any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and
the terms and conditions of employment involved are not among
government-owned and controlled corporations with
those fixed by law. Thus: Neither could the court a quo be accused of imprudence
original charters are governed by law and employees
or overzealousness, for in fact it had proceeded with
therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing
caution. Thus, after issuing a writ of injunction enjoining
changes thereof."
the continuance of the strike to prevent any further
SECTION 13. Terms and conditions of employment or improvements
disruption of public service, the respondent judge, in the
thereof, except those that are fixed by law, may be the subject of
same order, admonished the parties to refer the
negotiations between duly recognized employees' organizations and
II unresolved controversies emanating from their
appropriate government authorities.
employer-employee relationship to the Public Sector
The strike staged by the employees of the SSS Labor-Management Council for appropriate action [Rollo,
belonging to petitioner union being prohibited by law, an p. 86].
The same executive order has also provided for the general injunction may be issued to restrain it.
mechanism for the settlement of labor disputes in the public sector,
to wit:
III
It is futile for the petitioners to assert that the subject
labor dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the In their "Petition/Application for Preliminary and
SECTION 16. The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures, NLRC and, hence, the Regional Trial Court had no Mandatory Injunction," and reiterated in their reply and
whenever applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction enjoining the supplemental reply, petitioners allege that the SSS
complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees. continuance of the strike. The Labor Code itself provides unlawfully withheld bonuses and benefits due the
In case any dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the that terms and conditions of employment of government individual petitioners and they pray that the Court issue a
available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the parties employees shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, writ of preliminary prohibitive and mandatory injunction to
may jointly refer the dispute to the [Public Sector rules and regulations [Art. 276]. More importantly, E.O. restrain the SSS and its agents from withholding payment
Labor-Management] Council for appropriate action. No. 180 vests the Public Sector Labor-Management thereof and to compel the SSS to pay them. In their
Council with jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes supplemental reply, petitioners annexed an order of the
involving government employees [Sec. 16]. Clearly, the Civil Service Commission, dated May 5, 1989, which
NLRC has no jurisdiction over the dispute. ruled that the officers of the SSSEA who are not
Government employees may, therefore, through their unions or
preventively suspended and who are reporting for work
associations, either petition the Congress for the betterment of the
pending the resolution of the administrative cases against
terms and conditions of employment which are within the ambit of
them are entitled to their salaries, year-end bonuses and
legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government agencies for This being the case, the Regional Trial Court was not
other fringe benefits and affirmed the previous order of
the improvement of those which are not fixed by law. If there be any precluded, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction under
the Merit Systems Promotion Board.
The matter being extraneous to the issues elevated to this Court, it is
Our view that petitioners' remedy is not to petition this Court to issue
an injunction, but to cause the execution of the aforesaid order, if it
has already become final.

WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the

Court of Appeals, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED
and the decision of the appellate court dated March 9, 1988 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 13192 is AFFIRMED. Petitioners'
"Petition/Application for Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction" dated
December 13, 1988 is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.