Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Authority vs Confederation of Union in Government

Corporations and Offices

30 SCRA 649 Political Law Two-fold Function of the Government Free Enterprise
Ministrant vs Constituent Functions
In September 1961 a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was agreed upon by labor unions
(ASA and AWA) and ACCFA (Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration).
The said CBA was supposed to be effective on July 1, 1962. Due to non-implementation of the
CBA the unions held a strike on October 25, 1962. And 5 days later CUGCO (Confederation of
Unions in Government Corporations and Offices), the mother union of ASA and AWA filed a
complaint against ACCFA due to unfair labor practices, among others, which CUGCO was able
to win in court.
In April 1963, ACCFA appealed the decision and while the appeal was pending, Republic Act
No. 3844 was passed which effectively turned ACCFA to ACA (Agricultural Credit
Administration). In March 1964, ASA and AWA then petitioned that they may have sole
bargaining rights with ACA. While this petition was not yet decided upon, in the same month
of March 1964, Executive Order No. 75 was also passed which placed ACA under the Land
Reform Project Administration (LRPA). Notwithstanding the latest legislation passed, the trial
court and the appellate court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA and ruled that they have
bargaining rights with ACA..
ISSUE: Whether or not ASA and AWA can be given sole bargaining rights with ACA.
WON the CIR has jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the Unions for certification
election given that the mother company (ACA) is engaged in governmental functions
HELD: No. The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO 75 placed ACA under the LRPA
and by virtue of RA 3844 the implementation of the Land Reform Program of the government is
a governmental function NOT a proprietary function. Being such, ACA can no longer step down
to deal privately with said unions as it may have been doing when it was still ACCFA.
The Supreme Court also made a pronouncement which recognized the growing complexities of
modern society which have rendered the classification of the governmental functions (ministrant
and constituent) as unrealistic, if not obsolete. Ministerial and governmental functions continue
to lose their well-defined boundaries and are absorbed within the activities that the government
must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it to meet the increasing social challenges of the
times and move towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Hence, gone are the days
where constituent functions are exclusively performed by the government and not delegated to
private institutions. In this case, a constituent function is left to be performed by a private entity
like ACA (formerly ACCFA).
Separate Opinion on the Free Enterprise System
J. Fernando This country never practiced the free enterprise system and it has abandoned
the concept of laissez faire. It is the welfare state concept which is being followed as shown by
the constitutional provision on agrarian reform, housing, protection to labor and others that
provide for the social welfare.








Republic vs Judge of the Court of First Instance
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. The Presiding Judge, Branch XV, Court of First Instance
of Rizal and Jose Sison, respondents.

September 11, 1980

De Castro, J:

Facts:
Respondent Jose Sison filed a complaint against the petitioner Rice and Corn Administration
(RCA) for a sum of money with the Court of First Instance, presided by the respondent Judge.
The RCA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint but it was denied by the respondent Judge.
After a trial, the respondent Judge ruled in favor of Sison and ordered the RCA to pay the
corn grains it purchased from Sison and the attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.
The RCA later on filed its record on appeal.
Sison filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the RCA's failure to post an appeal bond and
the RCA, represented by the office of the Solicitor General, filed an opposition to Sison's motion to
dismiss the appeal.
The record on appeal filed by the RCA was approved by the respondent Judge but the
RCA's exemption from the payment of legal fees and from posting of the appeal bond was denied.
The respondent Judge issued an order giving the RCA 5 days within which to post an appeal
bond.
The RCA filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that they are exempt from posting an
appeal bond.
Sison filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of petitioner's refusal to file the
appeal bond.
The respondent Judge dismissed the RCA's appeal and ruled that the RCA, being a mere
instrumentality of the Government of the Philippines, is not exempt from the payment of legal fees
and from posting of an appeal bond.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner RCA is exempt from paying legal fees and from posting an
appeal bond.
Held:
Yes
Ratio:
RCA is a governmental agency of Republic of the Philippines without a separate, distinct and
independent legal personality from the latter. And, as a governmental agency under the Office of the
President, the RCA is thus exempt from the payment of legal fees and from posting of an appeal
bond.






Maquera vs Borra

Facts: Maquera seek to ask Republic Act No. 4421 requires "all candidates for national, provincial, city
and municipal offices" to post a surety bond equivalent to the one-year salary or emoluments of the
position to which he is a candidate,

ISSUE: whether or not RA no. 4421 is unconstitutional

lHELD: Supreme Court held that property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of
the Republican system ordained in our Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the
same. The court reasoned out that Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them, and this, in turn, implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be voted
shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual concerned. Social justice presupposes equal
opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be
denied the chance to be elected to public office
















Pierce vs Society of Sisters
Brief Fact Summary. Appellees, two non-public schools, were protected by a preliminary restraining
order prohibiting appellants from enforcing an Oregon Act that required parents and guardians to
send their children to public school. Appellants appealed the order.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The 14th Amendment provides a liberty interest in a parents or
guardians right to decide the mode in which their children are educated. States may not usurp this
right when the questioned legislation does not reasonably relate to a viable state interest.

Facts. Appellee the Society of Sisters, a corporation with the power to establish and maintain
academies or schools and Appellee Hill Military Academy, a private organization conducting an
elementary, college preparatory, and military training school, obtained preliminary restraining orders
prohibiting appellants from enforcing Oregons Compulsory Education Act. The Act required all
parents and guardians to send children between 8 and 16 years to a public school. The appellants
appealed the granting of the preliminary restraining orders.

Issue. Does the Act unreasonably interfere with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the
upbringing and education of children under their control?

Held. The Act violates the 14th Amendment because it interferes with protected liberty interests and
has no reasonable relationship to any purpose within the competency of the state.
The Appellees have standing because the result of enforcing the Act would be destruction of the
appellees schools. The state has the power to regulate all schools, but parents and guardians have
the right and duty to choose the appropriate preparation for their children.

Discussion. While the state has the right to insure that children receive a proper education, the 14th
Amendment provides parents and guardians with a liberty interest in their choice in the mode in
which their children are educated.