Social Security System Employees Association v.

CA Facts: On 9 June 1987, the officers and members of Social Security System Employees Ass ociation (SSSEA) staged a strike and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Buildin g, preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS members fro m transacting business with the SSS. The SSSEA went on strike after the SSS fail ed to act on the union's demands, which included: implementation of the provisio ns of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on check-off of un ion dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pa y; conversion of temporary or contractual employees with 6 months or more of ser vice into regular and permanent employees and their entitlement to the same sala ries, allowances and benefits given to other regular employees of the SSS; and p ayment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts of disc rimination and unfair labor practices. The strike was reported by the Social Sec urity System (SSS) to the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, which ordered the strikers to return to work. The strikers refused to return to work. On 11 Ju ne 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against the SSSEA , Dionisio T. Baylon, Ramon Modesto, Juanito Madura, Reuben Zamora, Virgilio De Alday, Sergio Araneta, Placido Agustin, and Virgilio Magpayo, praying that a wri t of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and that the strikers be ordered to return to work; that SSSEA, et. al. be ordered to pay damages; an d that the strike be declared illegal. On 11 June 1987, the RTC issued a tempora ry restraining order pending resolution of the application for a writ of prelimi nary injunction. In the meantime, the SSSEA, et. al. filed a motion to dismiss a lleging the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. On 22 Ju ly 1987, the court a quo denied the motion to dismiss and converted the restrain ing order into an injunction upon posting of a bond, after finding that the stri ke was illegal. As the SSSEA's motion for the reconsideration of the order was a lso denied on 14 August 1988, SSSEA ,et. al. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court (GR 79577). In a resolution dated 21 October 1987, the Court, through the Third Division, reso lved to refer the case to the Court of Appeals. SSSEA, et. al. filed a motion fo r reconsideration thereof, but during its pendency the Court of Appeals on 9 Mar ch 1988 promulgated its decision on the referred case. SSSEA, et. al. moved to r ecall the Court of Appeals' decision. In the meantime, the Court on 29 June 1988 denied the motion for reconsideration in GR 97577 for being moot and academic. SSSEA, et. al.'s motion to recall the decision of the Court of Appeals was also denied in view of the Supreme Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration. SSSEA filed the petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Issue: Whether SSS employees, in furtherance of labor interests, may conduct a strike. Held: The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights (Art. X III, Sec. 3), provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful conc erted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law." By itse lf, this provision would seem to recognize the right of all workers and employee s, including those in the public sector, to strike. But the Constitution itself fails to expressly confirm this impression, for in the Sub-Article on the Civil Service Commission, it provides, after defining the scope of the civil service a s "all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government , including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters," that "the right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employee s." Parenthetically, the Bill of Rights also provides that "the right of the peo ple, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,

associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not abridged" [Art. III, Sec. 8]. Thus, while there is no question that the Constitution reco gnizes the right of government employees to organize, it is silent as to whether such recognition also includes the right to strike. Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law becomes helpful in understanding the meaning of thes e provisions. A reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution would show that in recognizing the right of gover nment employees to organize, the commissioners intended to limit the right to th e formation of unions or associations only, without including the right to strik e. Statutorily, it will be recalled that the Industrial Peace Act (CA 875), whic h was repealed by the Labor Code (PD 442) in 1974, expressly banned strikes by e mployees in the Government, including instrumentalities exercising governmental functions, but excluding entities entrusted with proprietary functions. Understa ndably, the Labor Code is silent as to whether or not government employees may s trike, for such are excluded from its coverage. But then the Civil Service Decre e (PD 807), is equally silent on the matter. Thus, on 1 June 1987, to implement the constitutional guarantee of the right of government employees to organize, t he President issued EO 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the rig ht to organize of government employees. In Section 14 thereof, it is provided th at "the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes i n the government service shall be observed, subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress." The President was apparently referring to Memorandum Ci rcular No. 6, series of 1987 of the Civil Service Commission under date 12 April 1987 which, "prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning s trike by government employees enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, al l government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass l eaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary s toppage or disruption of public service." The air was thus cleared of the confus ion. At present, in the absence of any legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of the right, they are prohibited from striking, by express provision of Memorandum Cir cular 6 and as implied in EO 180. The Court is of the considered view that the S SS employees are covered by the prohibition against strikes. Considering that un der the 1987 Constitution "the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions , instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters" and that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created under RA 1161, its employees are part of the civil service and are covered by th e Civil Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. This being the case , the strike staged by the employees of the SSS was illegal. In fine, government employees may through their unions or associations, either petition the Congres s for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment which are within the ambit of legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government agencies f or the improvement of those which are not fixed by law. If there be any unresolv ed grievances, the dispute may be referred to the Public Sector Labor-Management Council for appropriate action. But employees in the civil service may not reso rt to strikes, walkouts and other temporary work stoppages, like workers in the private sector, to pressure the Government to accede to their demands. As now pr ovided under Sec. 4, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercis e of the Right of Government Employees to Self-Organization, which took effect a fter the present dispute arose, "the terms and conditions of employment in the g overnment, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and go vernment-owned and controlled corporations with original charters are governed b y law and employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes thereof."