ACCFA v CUGCO (L-21484) and ACCFA v ACCFA Supervisors (L-23605)

(SC issued a single decision for both cases)

Summary of Facts
L-21484
On Sept. 4, 1961, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was entered into by and
between the Unions (ASA and AWA) and ACCFA
On Oct. 30, 1962, the unions, along with CUGCO (the mother union), filed a
complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against ACCFA for committing
acts of unfair labor practices (i.e. violation of the CBA in order to discourage
members of the unions in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
discrimination against union members, and refusal to bargain)
ACCFA denied the charges but a decision against them was made by the CIR

L-23065
During the pendency of the case, ACCFA was reorganized into ACA under the Land
Reform code (RA no. 3844)
The unions then filed a petition for certification election with the CIR praying they be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agents of the employees of ACA.
ACA denied that the unions represented the majority of the supervisors and rank-
and-file workers. The trial court, finding no merit to ACAs opposition, granted the
petition
ACA appealed and challenged the courts jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the
Unions for certification election on the ground that ACA is engaged in governmental
functions (the unions claimed ACA is performing proprietary functions)

Issue: WON ACA/ACCFA exercises governmental or proprietary functions

Ruling: ACA excercises GOVERNMENTAL functions

Referring to the Land Reform code:
o Sections 110-118: explains how funds will be appropriated out of the national
funds. Its special privileges with the central bank, etc.
o Sections 113-118: vests the ACA with certain rights and powers not accorded
to non-governmental entities (i.e. the power to audit the operation of
farmers cooperativesis in the nature of the visitorial power of a sovereign,
with only a government agency specially delegated to do so by the congress
may legally exercise.)
Nature of ACA was touched on when the Land reform code was being considered by
congress
o Sen. Tolentino: Supposed to be a public service of the gov. to the lessees
and farmer-owners
Even though the ACA is a gov. office engaged in governmental functions, these
functions may not be strictly what Pres. Wilson described as constituent (vs.
ministrant)
o (another point by the author of the case) The growing complexities of modern
society have rendered the traditional classification of the functions of
government quite unreasonable
o proprietary activities continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and as
being absorbed within the activities that the gov. must undertake in its
sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times
no dispute that the land reform program is a purely governmental function
o this is the law that declared the ACA as a government office
(Just in case) Decision on petition for certification election: UNIONS NOT ENTITLED.
 o Violation of Sec. 11 (prohibition against strike in the government) of R.A. no.
875
employees therein shall not strike for the purposes of securing
changes or modifications in their terms and conditions of
employment
note such certification is admittedly for the purposes of bargaining in
behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions on
employment

Fernando, Concurring:
definite rejection of the constituent-ministrant criterion of governmental functions,
followed in Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation
The Wilson classification reflected the primacy of the dominant laissez-faire concept
carried into the sphere of government.