G.R. No. L-15614; May 30, 1960
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (GSISEA) and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM SUPERVISORS UNION (GSISSU), petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO ALVENDIA of the Court of First Instance of Manila and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), respondents.

FACTS

The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 40319) on May 29, 1959, joining the GSISEA and GSISSU as party respondents. The petition sought a judicial declaration on: (1) whether the GSIS exercises governmental or proprietary functions; (2) whether its employees, governed by the Civil Service Law, can compel it to enter into a collective bargaining agreement; and (3) whether said employees can declare a strike. This petition was filed 11 days after GSISEA members declared a strike (who returned to work 4 days later) and was allegedly necessary due to a pending labor dispute. On June 12, 1959, the respondent unions moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and that a declaration was unnecessary and improper. After the unions declared another strike on June 23, 1959, the GSIS filed an amended petition seeking a preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, the unions had filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), and on July 1, 1959, a CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practices against GSIS under Republic Act No. 875 . The GSIS, in its answer to that complaint, raised the same affirmative defenses regarding its governmental function and the illegality of the strikes. On July 2, 1959, the unions filed a motion and manifestation in the Court of First Instance, calling attention to the pendency of the unfair labor practice case and another CIR case (No. 896-V) filed long before the declaratory relief petition. The respondent Judge, however, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the writ of preliminary injunction on July 7, 1959. The unions then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging the Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of its jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss and granting the writ of preliminary injunction in the declaratory relief case filed by GSIS.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition, making the preliminary injunction it had issued permanent. The Court held that the petition for declaratory relief in the lower court was improper and unnecessary. First, the principal question of whether GSIS performs governmental or proprietary functions had already been definitively settled by the Supreme Court in GSIS vs. Castillo, et al. (98 Phil., 876), where it was ruled that the GSIS’s business of insurance is “not inherently or exclusively a governmental function” but is “in essence and practice, of a private nature and interest,” a pronouncement reiterated in Boy Scouts of the Phil. vs. Araos (102 Phil., 1080). Second, the declaratory relief action was filed after the unions had already gone on strike, meaning the statute or contract in question had already been breached, which is a ground for dismissal under the rules (citing Samson vs. Andal, 89 Phil., 627). Third, an unfair labor practice case involving the same parties and the same acts sought to be enjoined was already pending before the Court of Industrial Relations, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Since the issues in the declaratory relief petition were closely interwoven with the unfair labor practice case, the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to entertain it or issue the injunction (citing a line of cases including PAFLU vs. Tan, 99 Phil., 864). The declaratory relief petition was, in reality, a request for an advisory opinion on a moot controversy.