Gsis Family Bank Employees Union v. Villanueva
GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v. SEC. Cesar L. Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 210773, January 23, 2019
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Labor Law
- certiorari
- mootness
- governance commission
- collective bargaining agreement
- Republic Act No. 10149
- government-owned or controlled corporation
- non-chartered GOCC
- economic terms
- strike rights
- collective bargaining negotiations
- Labor Code
I. Facts of the Case
GSIS Family Bank Employees Union sought judicial relief to declare GSIS Family Bank outside the coverage of Republic Act No. 10149 and to compel the bank to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with its employees. The dispute arose after the union demanded compliance with CBA benefits and, upon refusal to negotiate, filed labor actions and a Supreme Court petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the Governance Commission and bank officials.
July 22, 1969
Royal Savings Bank was organized and incorporated as a thrift bank.
February 8, 1971
Royal Savings Bank began operating as a thrift bank.
June 28, 1984
Royal Savings Bank applied to the Central Bank of the Philippines for the appointment of a conservator.
July 6, 1984
The Central Bank denied the request for conservatorship, prohibited the bank from doing business, and placed it under receivership.
September 7, 1984
To settle the cases, Royal Savings Bank and Commercial Bank of Manila executed a Memorandum of Agreement to rehabilitate and infuse capital into Royal Savings Bank; the bank was later renamed Comsavings Bank.
December 1987
The GSIS transferred holdings from Commercial Bank of Manila to Boston Bank, and GSIS took over control and management of Comsavings Bank.
July 19, 1993
Comsavings Bank and GSIS executed a Memorandum of Agreement committing to infuse additional capital of P2.5 billion, after which GSIS effectively owned 99.55% of Comsavings Bank’s outstanding shares.
July 2001
Comsavings Bank changed its name to GSIS Family Bank.
May 25, 2004
The General Counsel of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas issued an opinion that GSIS Family Bank could not be categorized as a government bank because it was originally organized as a private stock savings and loan association.
September 8, 2010
Executive Order No. 7 imposed an indefinite moratorium on increases in salaries and benefits of employees in GOCCs and government financial institutions.
June 6, 2011
Republic Act No. 10149 (GOCC Governance Act of 2011) was enacted, creating the Governance Commission.
May 2, 2012
GSIS Family Bank’s president sought a BSP opinion on whether the bank could be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation or government bank under Republic Act No. 10149.
May 14, 2012
BSP advised GSIS Family Bank to seek the opinion of the Governance Commission.
January 15, 2013
GSIS Family Bank met with Governance Commission representatives, which clarified that GSIS Family Bank was classified as a government financial institution under Republic Act No. 10149.
February 11, 2013
Benitez wrote the Governance Commission seeking clarification on collective bargaining negotiations, authority to enter into a CBA, and employees’ right to strike.
March 8, 2013
The Governance Commission replied that, as a government financial institution, GSIS Family Bank was unauthorized to enter into a collective bargaining agreement because compensation and position classification were provided by law and not subject to private bargaining, and it clarified that the right to strike was not guaranteed by the Constitution.
December 20, 2013
Counsel for the GSIS Union sent a demand letter to GSIS Family Bank for the payment of Christmas bonus allegedly stipulated in their CBA.
January 30, 2014
The GSIS Union filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, asserting that GSIS Family Bank is a private bank not covered by Republic Act No. 10149.
May 13, 2016
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board, through MB Resolution 826.A, prohibited GSIS Family Bank from doing business and designated the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as its receiver.
January 23, 2019
The Supreme Court resolved the petition and addressed the procedural propriety of certiorari, the effect of the bank’s closure on justiciability, and the substantive coverage and bargaining limitations under Republic Act No. 10149.
II. Issues
Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari is the correct remedy.
Whether or not the closure of GSIS Family Bank has rendered the Petition moot.
Whether or not GSIS Family Bank, a non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporation, can enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari is the correct remedy.
The Governance Commission is not a tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, so certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy.
How the Court reasoned
- Certiorari under Rule 65 requires grave abuse of discretion by a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
- The petition directly challenged the Governance Commission’s actions/opinions, but the Court emphasized that the Governance Commission possesses neither judicial nor quasi-judicial powers.
- Because the Governance Commission is not a tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, it cannot be the proper subject of a certiorari petition.
- As a result, the procedural foundation for certiorari fails, notwithstanding the petition’s other allegations.
“The Governance Commission possesses neither judicial nor quasi-judicial powers; thus, it cannot review or settle actual controversies or conflicting rights between dueling parties and enforce legally demandable rights.”
Rule applied
Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution; Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
Whether or not the closure of GSIS Family Bank has rendered the Petition moot.
The closure of GSIS Family Bank and the subsequent designation of a receiver rendered the petition moot because the supervening event eliminated any live controversy.
How the Court reasoned
- A case is moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to a supervening event.
- After BSP prohibited GSIS Family Bank from doing business and PDIC was designated as receiver, the circumstances underlying the requested relief ceased.
- Because the petition’s practical objective—compelling bargaining/recognition of coverage issues for the bank as an operating entity—no longer presented a live dispute, the Court treated the petition as moot.
- Even with mootness, the Court noted it may still discuss issues when the case presents guidance opportunities.
“Nonetheless, even if all the requirements for the issuance of a writ of _certiorari_ were alleged and proven, and even if all the indispensable parties were impleaded, the closure of GSIS Family Bank has rendered the Petition moot.”
Rule applied
Principle on mootness/jusiticiability (case law) articulated in the decision
Whether or not GSIS Family Bank, a non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporation, can enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees.
GSIS Family Bank, as a non-chartered GOCC covered by Republic Act No. 10149, could not be compelled to negotiate economic terms through a CBA because compensation and position classification are governed by law and the Governance Commission’s framework.
How the Court reasoned
- Republic Act No. 10149 provides for a Compensation and Position Classification System for GOCCs covered by the law, including non-chartered GOCCs.
- The law does not depend on whether the GOCC is chartered or non-chartered; thus, coverage applies to fully government-owned and controlled non-chartered corporations.
- Compensation and position classification are fixed by law and standards under the Governance Commission’s system rather than through private bargaining.
- Given the existing legal framework at the time, GSIS Family Bank could not be faulted for refusing to negotiate economic terms in a new CBA.
Rule applied
Republic Act No. 10149; Executive Order No. 203 (as referenced in related discussion); principles distinguishing government employees’ terms fixed by law from those subject to negotiation under existing constitutional and statutory framework
Doctrines
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; the Governance Commission, having neither, cannot be subjected to certiorari in this context.
A case is deemed moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to a supervening event.
Non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporations covered by Republic Act No. 10149 are limited by law in negotiating the economic terms of collective bargaining agreements because the Compensation and Position Classification System under the Governance Commission framework governs compensation and classification.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED.
Notes
The Court treated the petition as moot due to GSIS Family Bank’s closure, but it still discussed the substantive labor bargaining implications of Republic Act No. 10149 as guidance for similar cases.