G.R. No. 85279 July 28, 1989
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA), ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The Social Security System (SSS) filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the SSS Employees Association (SSSEA). The SSS alleged that the union staged an illegal strike on June 9, 1987, barricading entrances to the SSS building, preventing non-strikers from working and members from transacting business. The strike ensued after the SSS failed to act on union demands concerning CBA provisions, overtime pay, and the regularization of contractual employees. The Public Sector Labor-Management Council had ordered the strikers to return to work, but they refused. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order and later converted it into a preliminary injunction, finding the strike illegal.
Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the case involved a labor dispute falling under the Department of Labor and Employment or the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals, to which the case was referred, dismissed the petitioners’ subsequent petition, holding that SSS employees, as government employees, have no right to strike and that the RTC properly assumed jurisdiction to enjoin the strike.

ISSUE

1. Do employees of the Social Security System have the right to strike?
2. Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the SSS’s complaint and to enjoin the strike?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court ruled that employees of the SSS, a government-owned or controlled corporation performing proprietary functions, are government employees covered by the Civil Service Law. While the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of workers to peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, this right is not absolute and must be exercised “in accordance with law.” Executive Order No. 180, which governs employer-employee relations in the government, provides that the terms and conditions of employment of government employees shall be governed by Civil Service rules. Crucially, it does not explicitly grant government employees the right to strike. Therefore, SSS employees do not possess such a right, and their strike was illegal.
On the second issue, the Court held that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction. Since SSS employees are covered by the Civil Service, the Labor Code and the jurisdiction of the NLRC do not apply. Jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government employees is vested by E.O. No. 180 in the Public Sector Labor-Management Council. However, this Council is not vested by law with authority to issue injunctive writs. Consequently, the RTC, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, was not precluded from taking cognizance of the SSS’s complaint for damages and issuing the injunction to prevent further disruption of public service. The Court noted the RTC acted prudently by also directing the parties to refer their unresolved disputes to the Council.