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) and its officers. The SSS alleged that on June 9, 1987, the union staged an illegal strike, barricaded the SSS building, and prevented non-strikers from working and members from transacting business. The Public Sector Labor-Management Council had ordered the strikers to return to work, but they refused. The strike was prompted by unmet union demands concerning CBA provisions on dues check-off, payment of accrued overtime and other benefits, regularization of contractual employees, and alleged unfair labor practices by the SSS.
The RTC issued a temporary restraining order and later, after denying the union’s motion to dismiss, converted it into a writ of preliminary injunction, finding the strike illegal and ordering the employees back to work. The union contested the RTC’s jurisdiction, asserting that the labor dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment or the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court of Appeals dismissed the union’s petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Do SSS employees have the right to strike? (2) Does the RTC have jurisdiction to enjoin the strike and order a return to work?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that SSS employees, as government employees, do not possess the right to strike. While the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful concerted activities, including strikes, it also provides that the terms and conditions of government employment shall be governed by civil service laws. Executive Order No. 180, which governs public sector unionism, explicitly states that the Civil Service Law and rules shall govern employee conduct and discipline. Since the right to strike is not recognized under the Civil Service Law, and EO 180 is silent on it, such a right cannot be inferred. Public sector strikes can be enjoined as they disrupt essential public services.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction. Since SSS employees are governed by civil service rules, the Labor Code and the jurisdiction of the NLRC do not apply. Jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government employees is vested by EO 180 in the Public Sector Labor-Management Council. However, this Council lacks the statutory authority to issue injunctive writs. Consequently, the general jurisdiction of the RTC under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 was not divested. The RTC could properly entertain the SSS’s complaint for damages and issue the injunction to prevent further disruption of public service. The Court noted the RTC acted prudently by also directing the parties to refer their underlying disputes to the Council.