GR 30137; (June, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30137. June 25, 1973.
PHILNABANK EMPLOYEE’S ASSOCIATION (PEMA)-ABUP-COLU, petitioners, vs. AUDITOR GENERAL and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner union, composed of employees of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the bank on December 1, 1967. A key provision authorized the conversion of accumulated leave credits in excess of 200 days into their cash equivalent. On September 17, 1968, the Auditor General disallowed this provision in audit, ruling it was not permissible, and directed the refund of any amounts already paid under it. The petitioner union appealed this ruling directly to the Supreme Court. The PNB, in effect, supported the union’s position on the merits. The Solicitor General, representing the Auditor General, raised a preliminary procedural challenge.
ISSUE
The threshold issue is procedural: whether the petitioner union, representing PNB employees, qualifies as a “private party or entity” entitled under the Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 327 to appeal the Auditor General’s decision directly to the Supreme Court, or whether the appeal should have been taken to the President.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the appeal was improperly taken directly to it. The Court ruled that PNB is a government-owned and controlled corporation created by statute. Consequently, its employees are government employees. The Court clarified that while they are not “political” officials exercising sovereign functions, they are nonetheless public employees for purposes of laws governing state corporations. This status is evidenced by the fact that the Bank’s finances are subject to audit by the Auditor General, who maintains a representative there. Furthermore, the Revised Administrative Code’s Leave Law classifies employees of government-owned corporations alongside those of national and local governments. Therefore, the union formed by these employees is not a “private party or entity.” Since the petitioner is not a private entity, the proper remedy from the Auditor General’s decision was an appeal to the President, whose action would be final. The Court thus refused to rule on the substantive merits of the leave conversion issue, having no jurisdiction over the direct appeal.