ACCFA v. ACCFA Supervisors’ Ass’n, G.R. No.

L-21484,
November 29, 1969

FACTS:
 The unions and ACCFA entered into a CBA, but after a few
months the Unions started protesting because of alleged
violations and non-implementation of the CBA. The Unions
declared a strike, which was ended when the strikers
voluntarily returned to work
 The Unions, together w/ CUGCO, filed a complaint with the
CIR against ACCFA for acts of unfair labor practice namely:
1. violation of the CBA to discourage Union members in the
exercise of their right to self-organization
2. discrimination against members in the matter of promotions
3. refusal to bargain.
 ACCFA denied the charges asserting:
1. lack of jurisdiction of the CIR over the case
2. illegality and expiration of the CBA
3. lack of approval by the President of the fringe benefits
provided.
 CIR decision ordered the ACCFA
(1) to cease and desist from committing further acts ______
(2) to comply with and implement the provision of the CBA
(inc. payment of P30.00 a month living allowance)
(3) to bargain in good faith with the complainants
 ACCFA moved to reconsider but was denied by the CIR.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the CIR has jurisdiction over this case (which in
turn depends on)
2. W/N ACCFA exercised governmental or proprietary
functions. - YES
3. W/N the CBA is valid; (if valid, WON it has already
lapsed; if not yet lapsed, WON its fringe benefits are
already enforceable)
4. W/N there is a legal & factual basis for the finding of
CIR that ACCFA had committed acts of unfair labor
practice.
5. W/N it is w/in the competence of CIR to enforce the
CBA, the same having already expired.
 During the pendency of the ACCFA’s case, RA 3844 was
signed into law, w/c (1) required the reorganization of the
administrative machinery of ACCFA and (2) changed its name
to ACA. So, the Unions (ASA, AWA) filed a petition for
certification election with the CIR praying that they be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agents for the supervisors
and rank-and-file employees in the ACA.
 ACA (1) denied that the Unions represented the majority of the
supervisors and rank-and-file workers in ACA. (2) It
alleged that the petition was premature, that the (3)
ACA was not the proper party to be notified and to answer the
petition, and (4) ACA employees and supervisors could not
lawfully become members of the Unions, nor be represented
by them
 However, in a joint manifestation of the Unions conformed by
the ACA Administrator and Agrarian Counsel, it was agreed Q: IS GOVT=CONSTITUENT
"that the union petitioners in this case represent the majority of PROPRIETARY = MINISTRANT
the ACA employees in their respective bargaining units" and
that only the legal issues raised would be submitted for the Polsci concept = constituent and ministrant
resolution of the trial Court. Law concept = governmental and proprietary
 The trial court then certified the AWA and ASA as the sole and
Whether one, however, uses the terms constituent and ministrant or
exclusive bargaining representatives of the rank-and-file governmental and proprietary, what is important to remember is that the
employees and supervisors of ACA. enumeration of specific government functions under these headings
cannot be static. This was emphasized in the case of ACCFA v. CUGCO.2'
RATIO At issue was the characterization of the functions of a government agency
charged with the implementation of the land reform program. The
function, the Court said, may not strictly be "constituent" in the sense of
Bacani, but the compelling urgency with which the Constitution speaks of
social justice doesnot leave any doubt that land reform is not an optional
but a compulsory function of sovereignty