SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR. No. 85279 – July 28, 1989
Justice Cortes

FACTS:
 June 11, 1987: The SSS filed a complaint against the SSSEA at the Regional Trial Court of QC. The SSS
alleged that on the day of June 9, 1987 the officers and members of the association staged an illegal strike
and barricaded the entrances to the SSS building
o Said strike prevented non-striking employees from being able to work, and the SSS members from
transacting business
o The strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor – Management Council (PSLMC) and the
strikers were ordered to return to work  which the strikers refused to do, and according to the
SSS, they suffered more damages as a result of the strike
 The SSSEA contended that they had to go on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union’s demands such
as:
o Implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement on
check-off union dues;
o Payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay;
o Conversion of temporary or contractual employees with (6) months or more of service into regular
and permanent employee status with the same salaries and allowances;
o Payment of children’s allowance of P30.000; and
o After the SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly
committed acts of discrimination and unfair labor practices
 The Trial Court found that the strike was indeed illegal  This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals
 Upon a motion of the SSS on February 6, 1989, the Court issued a TRO enjoining the SSEA from staging
another strike or from pursuing the notice of strike they filed with DOLE on January 25, 1989 and to
maintain the status quo
 SSSEA Arguments:
o The RTC had no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS as jurisdiction lay with the DOLE
and NLRC since the case involves a labor dispute
 SSS Arguments:
o Since the employees of the SSS are covered by civil service laws and rules and regulations, not
the Labor Code, the employees do not have the right to strike. In addition, since neither DOLE nor
NLRC has jurisdiction over the dispute, the RT may enjoin the employees from striking

ISSUES & HELD:

1. W/N the employees of the SSS have the right to strike – NO
o The 1987 Constitution provides that the State “shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with the law” (Art. XIII, Sec. 31)
o By itself, this provision would seem to assert the right of all workers and employees, including
those in the public sector to strike – but the Constitution fails to expressly include the public sector
 The Sub-Article on the CSC provides that “all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities,
and agencies of the Government, including GOCCs with original charters… the right to
self-organization shall not be denied to government employees” (Art. IX (B), Sec. 2(1)
and 50)
 Parenthetically, the Bill of Rights also provides that “the right of the people, including
those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged” (Art. III, Sec. 8)
 Clearly, there is no question as to the right of government employees to organize,
HOWEVER, it is silent as to whether such recognition also includes the right to strike
o Because of this uncertainty, the Court resorted to look at the intent of the framers of the organic
law:
  A reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987
Constitution would show that even if they recognized the right of government employees
to organize, it was limited to that only and without including the right to strike
 Commissioner Lerum: “When we proposed this amendment providing for self-
organization of government employees, it does not mean that because they have the right
to organize, they also have a right to strike. That is a different matter.”
o The Court added that it should be recalled that the Industrial Peace Act or RA 875 which was
actually repealed by the Labor Code expressly banned strikes by employees in the Government,
including instrumentalities exercising governmental functions, but excluding entities entrusted
with proprietary functions  NO similar provision in the Labor Code
o June 1, 1987: the President issued EO 180 which then provided the guidelines for the exercise of
the right to organize of government employees; in Sec. 14 thereof it stated that the Civil Service
Law rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed,
subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress
 The President was apparently referring to Memo. Circ. No. 6 1987 of the CSC which
states “prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by
government employees… enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government
officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and
other forms of mass action which result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public
service.”
o Are the SSS employees included in the prohibition – the Court is in the view that they are
 The SSS is included in the employees within the ambit of the civil service, and that SSS
is one such GOCC with an original charter  THIS BEING THE CASE, THE STRIKE
STAGED BY SSSEA WAS ILLEGAL
o The Case of Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment is
relevant to this case since it gave the rationale as to why workers in the private sectors are
distinguished from government employees:
 Terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers
cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure
concessions from their employers
 Relations between private employers and employees rest on an essentially “voluntary
basis” – terms and conditions of employment are settled through the process of collective
bargaining
 However, in government employment, it is the legislature, and the administrative heads
of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment
o Government employees may, through their unions or associations, either petition the Congress for
the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment or negotiate with the appropriate
government agencies for the improvement sought
 If there by any unresolved grievances, it may be referred to the PSLMC
2. W/N the RTC has jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to enjoin the strikers from continuing
with the strike and to order them to return to work? – YES
o The Labor Code itself provides the terms and conditions of employment of government employees
shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations
o Also, EO 180 vests the PSLMC with jurisdiction over unresolved disputes involving government
employees  Clearly, NLRC no jurisdiction
 This being the case, RTC was not precluded since it is the Council, and not the NLRC
that has jurisdiction – resort to the general courts of law for the issuance of a writ of
injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate

RULE:
“WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition for review
is hereby DENIED, and the decision of the appellate court AFFIRMED.”