Social Security System Employees Association vs. CA

17. Social Security System Employees Association vs.
Court of Appeals (1989)
Petitioners: Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA), Dionision T. Baylon, Ramon Modesto,
Juanita Madura, Reuben Zamora, Virgilio de Aldar, Sergio Araneta, Placido Agustin, Virgilio Magpayo
Respondents: The Court of Appeals, Social Security System (SSS), Hon. Cesar Peralejo, RTC of Quezon
City
FACTS:
 SSS filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ for preliminary injunction against
petitioner alleging that the officers and members of the SSSEA staged an illegal strike and
barricaded the entrance of the SSS building, preventing non-striking employees from reporting
for work and from SSS members from transacting business with SSS. The strike was then
reported to the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, which ordered the strikers to return
to work. The strikers, however, refused to do so, so they were ordered to pay damages and SSS
sought to have the strike be declared illegal.
 Apparently, SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union’s demands, which
included the following:
o Implementation of the provisions of the SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement on
check-off of union dues
o Payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay
o Conversion of temporary 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 benefits given to other regular employees of the SSS;
o payment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS deducted certain
amounts from the salaries of the employees and
o allegedly committed acts of discrimination and unfair labor practices
 Upon motion of the SSS, the Court issued a TRO enjoining petitioners from staging another
strike or from pursuing the notice of strike they filed with DOLE.
 Petitioners’ argument: The RTC had no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS because
jurisdiction lay with DOLE or the NLRC, since the case involves labor dispute.
 SSS arguments: 1) employees of the SSS are covered by civil service laws and regulations, not
the Labor Code, and therefore, they do not have the right to strike, and 2) since neither the
DOLE or NLRC has jurisdiction over the dispute, the RTC may enjoin the employees from striking
 The CA ruled in favor of SSS.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the employees of SSS have the right to strike

2. W/N the RTC have jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to enjoin the strikers
from continuing with the strike and to order them to return to work
HELD:
1. No, SSS employees do not have the right to strike.

a. The Constitution provides that the State “shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.” (Art. XIII, Sec. 31).
However, under the sub-Article on the Civil Service Commission, it provides after
defining the scope of the civil service as "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 employees" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(l) and (50)]. The Bill of Rights also
provides that "the right of the people, 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 recognizes the right of government employees to organize, it is silent as to
whether such recognition also includes the right to strike.
b. Resort to the intent of the framers of the Constitution showed that there is recognition
of the right of government employees to organize, and the commissioners intended to
limit the right to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the
right to strike.
c. On June 1, 1987, the President issued E.O. No. 180 which provides guidelines for the
exercise of the right to organize of government employees. Specifically under Section
14, it provided that the Civil Service "the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted
activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed, subject to any
legislation that may be enacted by Congress." The President was apparently referring to
Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service Commission under date April
21, 1987 which, "prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning
strike by government employees ... enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all
government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves,
walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or
disruption of public service."
d. Rationale as cited in Alliance of Government Workers vs. Minister of Labor and
Employment: “Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by
law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the
private sector to secure concessions from their employers.”
e. Further, under Section 16 of E.O. No. 180: “The Civil Service and labor laws and
procedures, whenever applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of complaints,
grievances and cases involving government employees. In case any dispute remains
unresolved after exhausting all the available remedies under existing laws and
procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the [Public Sector Labor-
Management] Council for appropriate action.”
f. Therefore, since SSS employees are covered by Civil Service law, the strike staged by
said employees was illegal.
2. Yes, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The strike staged by the employees of the SSS
belonging to petitioner union being prohibited by law, an injunction may be issued to restrain it.
This being the case, the Regional Trial Court was not precluded, in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, from assuming jurisdiction over the SSS's complaint
for damages and issuing the injunctive writ prayed for therein. Unlike the NLRC, the Public
Sector Labor - Management Council has not been granted by law authority to issue writs of
injunction in labor disputes within its jurisdiction. Thus, since it is the Council, and not the NLRC,
that has jurisdiction over the instant labor dispute, resort to the general courts of law for the
issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate.

Social Security System Employees Association vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Security System Employees Association vs. CA

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

Social Security System Employees Association vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17. Social Security System Employees Association vs.

Court of Appeals (1989)

1. W/N the employees of SSS have the right to strike

1. No, SSS employees do not have the right to strike.

You might also like