G.R. No. L-4488; August 27, 1952
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT WORKERS’ UNION (CLO), respondents.

FACTS

On June 16, 1949, the Metropolitan Water District Workers’ Union petitioned the board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District, demanding that all laborers who have rendered six months of continuous, faithful and satisfactory service be given permanent appointments. The dispute was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations after an amicable settlement failed. The Metropolitan Water District opposed the demand, arguing it would cause undue financial hardship by obliging the District to keep laborers on its payroll regardless of available work. The Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision on September 25, 1950, ordering the Metropolitan Water District to give permanent appointments to all its employees and laborers who have rendered six months of continuous, faithful and satisfactory service. The Metropolitan Water District filed a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over the dispute involving the Metropolitan Water District.
2. Whether the order to grant permanent appointments to laborers with six months of satisfactory service is contrary to law, particularly the Civil Service Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, ordering the grant of permanent appointments to laborers with six months of continuous, faithful, and satisfactory service.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court held that the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over disputes affecting employees and laborers of government-owned or government-controlled corporations, citing Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Company. The Metropolitan Water District, created by Act No. 384 , is an independent juridical personality that may sue or be sued. The Court rejected the argument that the District is not engaged in “industry,” likening its business of providing water supply and sewerage service to industries like coal companies, gas companies, and power plants.
2. On the Merits of the Demand for Permanent Appointments: The Court found the petitioner’s objection based on potential financial hardship unmeritorious. It ruled that a permanent appointment, in the context of the decision, does not guarantee permanent availability of items or appropriations. The Court of Industrial Relations expressly noted that “if there is no work, they cannot continue working.” Any government position, permanent or temporary, may be abolished for lack of usefulness or funds. The Court emphasized that the laborers’ demand was prompted by a desire to receive benefits like government insurance, and there was no reason to discriminate against laborers who had rendered service from six months to twenty years. The Court further held that the issue of whether the Metropolitan Water District falls under the Civil Service Law was immaterial, as the petitioner’s sole objection was financial hardship and not any violation of civil service rules regarding eligibility or appointments. The constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor was cited in support of the decision.