PLAI

← All case digests

Case digest

(Gsis) v. GSISSU

Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Government Service Insurance System Supervisors' Union (GSISSU), et al., G.R. Nos. L-29186, L-29493, L-31311, L-32735, December 29, 1975

G.R. No. L-29493December 29, 1975Ponente: ESGUERRA, J.
  • Procedural (Remedial Law)
  • Labor Law
  • Republic Act No. 875
  • collective bargaining
  • supervisors' union
  • Court of Industrial Relations
  • certification of bargaining representative
  • status quo order
  • unfair labor practice
  • discrimination
  • memorandum circular
  • right to self-organization
  • injunction
  • civil service labor relations

Read the full decision

I. Facts of the Case

The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) was certified by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) through the Government Service Insurance System Supervisors' Union (GSISSU) as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of GSIS employees in pay classes 7 to 13 for purposes of collective bargaining. Before the certification was finally resolved on review in the Supreme Court, GSIS began reassignment affecting the supervisory unit and thereafter allegedly refused to confer and bargain in good faith, while CIR also found discrimination against GSISSU amounting to unfair labor practice. Separately, the GSIS employees’ union sought enforcement and/or restraining actions tied to a Government Corporate Counsel memorandum directing lawyers to sever union membership, which CIR held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s final resolution of the certification case. These intertwined issues required the Supreme Court to assess CIR’s jurisdiction over incident proceedings, the labor rights of supervisors’ unions under Republic Act No. 875, and the propriety of CIR’s orders on bargaining, unfair labor practices, and the contested memorandum’s enforcement.

  1. August 4, 1967

    The CIR, in C.I.R. Case No. 1591-MC, certified GSISSU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all GSIS employees holding positions from Pay Classes 7 to 13 for collective bargaining regarding salaries, hours of work, rates of pay, and other terms and conditions of employment allowed by law.

  2. October 16, 1967

    The CIR en banc affirmed the August 4, 1967 CIR order of certification.

  3. February 20, 1968

    GSIS issued Office Order No. 34 (dated February 20, 1968) partially implementing its reassignment plan affecting supervisors belonging to pay classes 7 to 13.

  4. February 21, 1968

    GSIS issued Office Order No. 35 (dated February 21, 1968) further implementing the reassignment plan affecting supervisors in pay classes 7 to 13.

  5. February 23, 1968

    GSISSU filed in the CIR a petition (C.I.R. Case No. 1591-MC(1)) alleging, among others, that GSIS failed to consult the union and that the re-shuffling was intended to effectively deprive affected employees of notice and hearing; it sought an injunction to desist from implementing the reassignment of personnel in the supervisory bargaining unit.

  6. February 24, 1968

    The CIR issued an order commanding the parties to observe the status quo until the jurisdictional issue was resolved, reasoning that implementation of the reassignment by February 26, 1968 would render the direct certification petition moot and academic.

  7. GSIS filed petitions for review by certiorari in the Supreme Court: (1) G.R. No. L-29186 contesting the CIR’s jurisdiction and grave abuse in issuing the February 24, 1968 status quo order, while (2) the certification order from the earlier CIR case remained pending review in G.R. No. L-29493.

  8. Meanwhile, GSISSU filed in the CIR a petition (C.I.R. Case No. 87-IPA) asking that GSIS be ordered to confer and negotiate in good faith with GSISSU, that GSIS be found guilty of multiple counts of unfair labor practice, and that specific monetary awards and attorneys’ fees be granted, alleging refusal to bargain and union-busting activities.

  9. March 7, 1969

    GSISSU filed another petition in the CIR (CIR Case No. 87-IPA, G.R. No. L-31311) for relief due to alleged persistent refusal to bargain and continuing unfair labor practices despite the certification order still being pending review in the Supreme Court.

  10. June 4, 1969

    The CIR declared the agreement “Exhibit 1” null and void for discriminatory conditions intended to discourage GSISSU membership, ordered GSIS management to confer in good faith for negotiating/executing a wages-and-terms agreement subject to the outcome of G.R. No. L-29493, found GSIS guilty of discrimination amounting to unfair labor practices under Sec. 4(a)(4) of R.A. 875, and ordered GSIS to cease and desist.

  11. July 3, 1970

    GSISSU filed CIR Case No. 87-IPA(10) (G.R. No. L-32735) alleging a Government Corporate Counsel Memorandum Circular dated June 3, 1970 directed lawyers to sever union membership within fifteen days, which would violate the right to self-organization and would emasculate GSISSU given the bargaining unit composition was still pending review.

  12. July 17, 1970

    The CIR ordered enforcement of the Government Corporate Counsel Memorandum Circular held in abeyance pending resolution by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-29493, rejecting the claim of grave abuse in holding the enforcement in abeyance.

  13. December 29, 1975

    The Supreme Court affirmed all questioned CIR orders and resolutions in the referenced CIR cases and made the temporary injunction permanent.

II. Issues

1
Procedural (Remedial Law)

Whether or not respondent Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to issue its February 24, 1968 order directing the parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue in the injunction case.

2
Labor Law

Whether supervisors’ unions are entitled to engage in collective bargaining with the employer under Republic Act No. 875 despite the provision in Section 3 on ineligibility for membership in unions of employees under their supervision.

3
Labor Law

Whether or not GSIS committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain and/or by discrimination affecting the GSISSU bargaining relationship and membership during the pendency of review of the certification order.

4
Labor Law

Whether or not the agreements between GSIS and GSISSU (including those referenced by CIR) were properly declared null and void for discriminatory conditions and for imposing a condition that bargaining negotiations would not be pressed pending appeal resolution.

5
Procedural (Remedial Law)

Whether or not CIR committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering that enforcement of the Government Corporate Counsel Memorandum Circular dated June 3, 1970 be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the certification review in G.R. No. L-29493.

III. Ruling

Issue 1Procedural (Remedial Law)

Whether or not respondent Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to issue its February 24, 1968 order directing the parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue in the injunction case.

Yes

The CIR properly exercised jurisdiction in issuing the February 24, 1968 status quo order to prevent its August 4, 1967 certification order from becoming moot and academic while the jurisdictional issue was pending before the Supreme Court.

How the Court reasoned

  1. The Supreme Court treated the CIR’s status quo directive as an incident of the principal direct certification matter, not as an independent controversy outside CIR competence.
  2. The status quo order was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the August 4, 1967 certification ruling pending resolution of GSIS’s jurisdictional challenge.
  3. Allowing GSIS to implement the reassignment immediately would have rendered the certification dispute moot and academic, defeating meaningful review by the Court.
  4. The Court rejected GSIS’s contention that CIR lacked jurisdiction, describing the argument as off-tangent and lacking merit.
  5. Thus, the CIR did not commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the parties to maintain status quo.
“This case is merely an incident of the latter and the CIR did not err in exercising said jurisdiction when it issued the contested order of February 24, 1968, to maintain the status quo and in order to prevent its order of August 4, 1967, from becoming moot and academic.”

Rule applied

Republic Act No. 875 (notably provisions on certification and the CIR’s labor relations jurisdiction, referenced in the case as incidents to the principal certification controversy); Sec. 12, Republic Act No. 875; Sec. 10, Rule 43, Rules of Court (as invoked in the citations)

Issue 2Labor Law

Whether supervisors’ unions are entitled to engage in collective bargaining with the employer under Republic Act No. 875 despite the provision in Section 3 on ineligibility for membership in unions of employees under their supervision.

Yes

Supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities, and any discrimination against them on account of such activities constitutes unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875.

How the Court reasoned

  1. The Court relied on established labor relations doctrine recognizing supervisors’ right to union activities.
  2. It held that the ability to form or belong to a separate organization necessarily carries the right to engage in collective bargaining with the employer.
  3. The Court viewed the R.A. 875 provisions on ineligibility for membership in unions of employees under supervision as not defeating supervisors’ right to organize separately and bargain through their certified representatives.
  4. Consequently, discrimination keyed to union membership or activities among supervisors violates the statutory protection against unfair labor practices.
“There is but little doubt that supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities and any discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes unfair labor practice (Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-16992, December 22, 1961).”

Rule applied

Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-16992, December 22, 1961; Republic Act No. 875 (Sec. 3; also read with Sec. 12 as to certification and bargaining representative status); Sec. 6 and Sec. 14, C.A. 103 (as cited in the extracted citations)

Issue 3Labor Law

Whether or not GSIS committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain and/or by discrimination affecting the GSISSU bargaining relationship and membership during the pendency of review of the certification order.

Yes

GSIS committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain and by discriminating in ways that affected GSISSU’s bargaining relationship and membership while the certification review was still pending.

How the Court reasoned

  1. CIR found that GSIS refused to confer and bargain in good faith with the certified bargaining representative.
  2. CIR further found discrimination against GSISSU that discouraged membership and impaired the union’s role as bargaining representative.
  3. The Supreme Court sustained CIR’s unfair labor practice findings, treating discrimination because of union membership as within the prohibition in Sec. 4(a)(4) of R.A. 875.
  4. The Court also treated the pendency of review as not a license to defeat the union’s certified status or to undermine the bargaining relationship through discriminatory conduct.

Rule applied

Republic Act No. 875, Sec. 4(a)(4); Republic Act No. 875 (overall unfair labor practice framework); Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-16992, December 22, 1961

Issue 4Labor Law

Whether or not the agreements between GSIS and GSISSU (including those referenced by CIR) were properly declared null and void for discriminatory conditions and for imposing a condition that bargaining negotiations would not be pressed pending appeal resolution.

Yes

CIR correctly declared the referenced agreement(s) null and void because they contained discriminatory conditions designed to discourage GSISSU membership and because they imposed terms inconsistent with good-faith bargaining expectations during the pendency of review.

How the Court reasoned

  1. CIR determined that the agreement “Exhibit 1” included discriminatory conditions aimed at discouraging GSISSU membership.
  2. The Court affirmed CIR’s nullification of such discriminatory agreement provisions as consistent with the unfair labor practice framework of R.A. 875.
  3. CIR’s remedy required GSIS to confer in good faith for negotiating wages and other terms, subject to the final outcome of the certification case pending before the Supreme Court.
  4. Thus, the Supreme Court sustained CIR’s approach to removing discriminatory and bargaining-suppressing conditions from the bargaining process.

Rule applied

Republic Act No. 875 (unfair labor practice provisions, including Sec. 4(a)(4)); Republic Act No. 875 (certification and bargaining-related provisions, including Sec. 12); Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices et al. v. Abelardo Subido, et al., G.R. No. L-22723 (as cited and used in interpreting related issues)

Issue 5Procedural (Remedial Law)

Whether or not CIR committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering that enforcement of the Government Corporate Counsel Memorandum Circular dated June 3, 1970 be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the certification review in G.R. No. L-29493.

No

CIR did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding in abeyance the enforcement of the Government Corporate Counsel Memorandum Circular dated June 3, 1970 pending the Supreme Court’s final resolution of the certification review in G.R. No. L-29493.

How the Court reasoned

  1. CIR held the memorandum circular’s enforcement in abeyance to avoid undermining GSISSU’s rights while the certification composition and unit status were still under review.
  2. The Supreme Court sustained CIR’s conclusion that CIR’s abeyance was anchored on a misinterpretation argument, including that the enforcement sought would violate the decision’s intended scope.
  3. Because enforcement would sever union membership within a short period and emasculate the union during pendency, CIR’s restraint was found appropriate.
  4. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in CIR’s order.

Rule applied

Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices et al. v. Abelardo Subido, et al., G.R. No. L-22723 (as cited in the chunk and used by the Court to show the basis for CIR’s interpretation and abeyance); Republic Act No. 875 (right to self-organization and unfair labor practice protections referenced in the reasoning signals)

Doctrines

1

In labor disputes involving a principal certification controversy pending Supreme Court review, the Court of Industrial Relations may issue incident orders, such as a status quo directive, to prevent the principal issues from becoming moot and academic.

2

Supervisors are entitled to union activities; discrimination against supervisors on account of such union activities constitutes unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875, and supervisors’ right to organize carries with it the right to bargain collectively through their certified bargaining representative.

3

When agreements or employer actions contain discriminatory conditions that discourage union membership or undermine good-faith bargaining, CIR may declare such arrangements void and order good-faith bargaining measures consistent with the unfair labor practice provisions of Republic Act No. 875.

Final Disposition

WHEREFORE, all the questioned orders and resolutions of respondent CIR in CIR Cases No. 1591-MC (G.R. No. L-29493); No. 1591-MC(1) (G.R. No. L-29186); No. 87-IPA (G.R. No. L-31311); and No. 87-IPA(10) (G.R. No. L-32735) are affirmed, and the temporary injunction granted in CIR Cases No. 1591-MC(1),and No. 87-IPA and No. 87-IPA(10) is made permanent.

Notes

The petitions reviewed multiple related CIR orders: (a) a February 24, 1968 status quo injunction incident to the certification case, (b) findings of unfair labor practice and nullification of a discriminatory agreement, and (c) CIR’s restraint (abeyance) of a later Government Corporate Counsel memorandum affecting union membership while the certification review remained pending.