ACCFA v CUGCO G.R. No. L-21484.

November 29, 1969

PONENTE: MAKALINTAL, J
DOCTRINE:
Due to complexities of the changing society, the two-fold function of the
government as classified by President Wilson is no longer relevant.
The ACCFA filed two separate appeals by certiorari from the CIR decision dated
March 25, 1963 (G.R. No. L-21484) and the order dated May 21, 1964(G.R. No. L23605) as affirmed by the resolutions en banc,of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR),
in Cases Nos. 3450-ULP and 1327-MC, respectively. Only one decision was rendered
since the parties and the principal issues involved in both cases are practically the same.
FACTS:
ACCFA is a government agency created under RA 821, as amended. It was
reorganized and changed to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the RA 3844
or Land Reform Code. While ACCFA Supervisors' Association (ASA) and the ACCFA
Workers' Association (AWA), are labor organizations (the Unions) composed of the
supervisors and the rank-and-file employees in the ACCFA.
A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was approved by labor unions (ASA
and AWA) and ACCFA. The said CBA was supposed to be effective on 1 July 1962.
However, due to non-implementation of the CBA the unions held a strike.
The Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO)
, together with its mother union, filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations
against the ACCFA on October 30, 1962, the Unions for having allegedly committed acts
of unfair labor practice, namely: violation of the collective bargaining agreement in order
to discourage the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to selforganization, discrimination against said members in the matter of promotions, and
refusal to bargain.
ACCFA went for a modification, but while the appeal was pending, the president
of the Philippines signed into law the Agricultural land Reform Code (R.A. 3844) which
among other things required Reorganizations of Administrative Machinery of
Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administrative changed its name to
Agricultural credit Administration, and which effectively turned ACCFA to ACA. Then,
ASA and AWA petitioned that they obtain sole bargaining rights with ACA.
While this petition was not yet decided upon, EO 75 was also passed which
placed ACA under the Land Reform Project Administration. Notwithstanding the latest
legislation passed, the trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA.

ISSUE:
WON, ACA is a government entity.
WON, the Unions can be given sole bargaining rights with ACA and whether or
notthe CBA between the petitioner and the respondents is valid.
HELD:
Yes, Under Section 3 of Agricultural Land Reform Code. ACA established among
other governmental agencies to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture, in
pursuance under Section 2. ACA cant bow out to transact privately. It is ministerial and
government functions are exercised by the state as attributes of sovereignty and not
merely to promote welfare, progress, and prosperity.
The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO 75 placed ACA under the
LRPA and by virtue of RA 3844 the implementation of the Land Reform Program of the
government is a governmental function NOT a proprietary function.