GR L L 29493; (December 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29493, L-29186, L-31311, L-32735. December 29, 1975.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM SUPERVISORS’ UNION (GSISSU), GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (GSISEA), and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR), respondents.
FACTS
The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) certified the Government Service Insurance System Supervisors’ Union (GSISSU) as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for GSIS employees in Pay Classes 7 to 13. The GSIS challenged this certification. Subsequently, the GSIS issued office orders to reassign supervisory personnel within this unit. The GSISSU sought an injunction from the CIR, arguing the reshuffling was done without consultation and would undermine the certification order. The CIR issued a status quo order to halt the reassignments pending resolution of the certification case.
While the certification and injunction orders were under Supreme Court review, the GSISSU filed an unfair labor practice case, alleging the GSIS refused to bargain collectively. The CIR ordered the GSIS to negotiate in good faith with the union pending the Supreme Court’s final decision. Separately, the Government Corporate Counsel issued a memorandum directing lawyers in government corporations to sever union membership, which the CIR also ordered held in abeyance.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the CIR committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) certifying the GSISSU as the bargaining agent; (2) issuing the status quo order on personnel reassignments; (3) ordering the GSIS to negotiate pending appeal; and (4) suspending the implementation of the memorandum on lawyers’ union membership.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed all challenged CIR orders. The legal logic rests on distinguishing between governmental and proprietary functions of government-owned or controlled corporations. The GSIS, while a government entity, performs proprietary functions by operating as an insurance provider. Employees in such proprietary corporations are entitled to collective bargaining rights under the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ). The certification of an appropriate bargaining unit, comprising supervisors in Pay Classes 7 to 13, was therefore valid.
Consequently, the CIR did not abuse its discretion in issuing the status quo injunction. The reassignment of personnel within the certified bargaining unit, if implemented during the pendency of the certification appeal, could render the main case moot and academic by effectively altering the composition of the unit. The order to negotiate collectively pending appeal was also proper to preserve industrial peace, as the certification order was deemed effective and enforceable absent a restraining order from the Supreme Court. Finally, the memorandum directing lawyers to leave unions was based on a misinterpretation of a prior ruling and was correctly suspended, as lawyers in government corporations performing proprietary functions retain their right to union membership.