PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA) v ESTANISLAO
G.R. No. 104209
November 16, 1993
VITUG, J.:
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 6971 was signed into law on 22 November 1990 by then President Corazon C. Aquino. It took effect on 9 December 1990 (fifteen days after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation).
Section 3 of the law states:
Sec. 3. Coverage.— This Act shall apply to all business enterprises with or without, existing and duly recognized or certified labor organizations, including government owned and controlled corporations performing proprietary functions. It shall cover employees and workers including casual, regular, supervisory and managerial employees.
Supplemental Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6971 (Productivity Incentives Act of 1990), jointly promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Finance and the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, excluding from the coverage of said Act the employees of the Philippine National Bank ("PNB"), Development Bank of the Philippines ("DBP"), Land Bank of the Philippines ("LBP"), Social Security System ("SSS") and Government Service and Insurance
G.R. No. 104209
November 16, 1993
VITUG, J.:
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 6971 was signed into law on 22 November 1990 by then President Corazon C. Aquino. It took effect on 9 December 1990 (fifteen days after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation).
Section 3 of the law states:
Sec. 3. Coverage.— This Act shall apply to all business enterprises with or without, existing and duly recognized or certified labor organizations, including government owned and controlled corporations performing proprietary functions. It shall cover employees and workers including casual, regular, supervisory and managerial employees.
Supplemental Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6971 (Productivity Incentives Act of 1990), jointly promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Finance and the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, excluding from the coverage of said Act the employees of the Philippine National Bank ("PNB"), Development Bank of the Philippines ("DBP"), Land Bank of the Philippines ("LBP"), Social Security System ("SSS") and Government Service and Insurance
System ("GSIS").
Present petition for certiorari.
The petitioners contend that by promulgating the Supplemental Rules, the respondents have "overstepped the bounds of their rule-making authority by amending the coverage of the Act as provided in Section 3 thereof." Arguing that Republic Act No. 6971 has been intended by the lawmakers to cover government- owned and controlled corporations which are performing proprietary functions, without qualifications, the petitioners assert that the respondents have "arrogated upon themselves the power not only to make law, but also to unmake it by adopting rules inconsistent with and contrary to the clear intention and the end sought to be attained by the Act." 9 The petitioners conclude that the respondents have thus gravely based their discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Should certiorari be granted?
HELD:
NO.
(1) NOT JUDICIAL FUNCTION. A petition for certiorari is a special civil action that may be invoked only against a a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65, of the revised Rules of Court is explicit on this matter; viz:
Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or officer.
the respondent department secretaries, in promulgating the questioned rule did so in accordance with the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971. Concededly, in the process, neither did said respondents act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor did they arrogate unto themselves any such performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative
(2) PREMATURE. SC has repeatedly declined on grounds of prematurity, as well as in the interest of good order, a hasty recourse to the courts when administrative avenues are still open.
(3) SC only has APPELATE JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW.
in essence, it seeks the declaration by the court of the unconstitutionality and illegality of the questioned rule, thus partaking the nature, in reality, of one for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.
(4) The SC is NOT AN INITIAL EVALUATOR OF FACTS. the principal issue
Present petition for certiorari.
The petitioners contend that by promulgating the Supplemental Rules, the respondents have "overstepped the bounds of their rule-making authority by amending the coverage of the Act as provided in Section 3 thereof." Arguing that Republic Act No. 6971 has been intended by the lawmakers to cover government- owned and controlled corporations which are performing proprietary functions, without qualifications, the petitioners assert that the respondents have "arrogated upon themselves the power not only to make law, but also to unmake it by adopting rules inconsistent with and contrary to the clear intention and the end sought to be attained by the Act." 9 The petitioners conclude that the respondents have thus gravely based their discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Should certiorari be granted?
HELD:
NO.
(1) NOT JUDICIAL FUNCTION. A petition for certiorari is a special civil action that may be invoked only against a a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65, of the revised Rules of Court is explicit on this matter; viz:
Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or officer.
the respondent department secretaries, in promulgating the questioned rule did so in accordance with the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971. Concededly, in the process, neither did said respondents act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor did they arrogate unto themselves any such performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative
(2) PREMATURE. SC has repeatedly declined on grounds of prematurity, as well as in the interest of good order, a hasty recourse to the courts when administrative avenues are still open.
(3) SC only has APPELATE JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW.
in essence, it seeks the declaration by the court of the unconstitutionality and illegality of the questioned rule, thus partaking the nature, in reality, of one for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.
(4) The SC is NOT AN INITIAL EVALUATOR OF FACTS. the principal issue
raised by the petitioners, i.e., whether or not the government financial institutions
herein involved (but which have not even been impleaded) are embraced by the
phrase "government-owned and controlled corporations performing proprietary
functions" in the context of Republic Act 6971, is itself not necessarily a mere
question of law, that, for certain can totally discard a factual assessment of the
respective operations of said institutions and the degree that such operations
interrelate, as the case may be, to their governmental or proprietary functions.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment