Bureau of Printing Vs Bureau of Printing Employees Association (G.R. No. L-15751) Constitutional Law

BUREAU OF PRINTING, SERAFIN SALVADOR and MARIANO LEDESMA, petitioners,

vs.

THE BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NLU), PACIFICO ADVINCULA, ROBERTO MENDOZA, PONCIANO ARGANDA and TEODULO TOLERAN, respondents.

Ponente:

GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:

Action: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

Facts:

BPEA (respondents) filed a complaint by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial Court against petitioners BOP (secretary of Department of General Services and Director of BOP). The complaint alleged that both the secretary of DOG and the director of BOP have been engaging in unfair labor practices. Answering the complaint, the petitioners (BOP), denied the charges of unfair labor practices attributed to them and alleged that the BPEA complainants were suspended pending result of administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations; that the BOP is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but of the republic performing governmental functions. For relief, they prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But later on January 27, 1959, the trial judge of Industrial Court sustained the jurisdiction of the court on the theory that the functions of the BOP are “exclusively proprietary in nature,” since they receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and holidays, therefore consequently denied the prayed for dismissal, which brought the petitioners (BOP) to present petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Issues:

Whether or not the BOP can be sued.

Ruling:

the petition for a writ of prohibition is granted. The orders complained of are set aside and the complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioners is dismissed,

Ratio Decidendi:

As an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the BOP cannot be sued. It is true that BOP receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and holidays, but these facts do not justify the conclusion that its functions are “exclusively proprietary in nature”. Overtime work in the BOP is done only when the interest of the service so requires. As a matter of administrative policy, the overtime compensation may be paid, but such payment is discretionary with the head of the Bureau depending upon its current appropriations, so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the functions of said Bureau are wholly proprietary in character.

Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much less over its jurisdiction.