SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Department of Public Services Labor Unions vs. Court of
Industrial Relations
No. L-15458. January 28, 1961.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES LABOR UNIONS,
petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON and THE
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA,
respondents.
Municipal corporations; City of Manila; Governmental function;
Garbage disposal is not a proprietary function.·The collection and
disposal of garbage and acting in conserving the public health is
governmental wherein the municipality acts for the State. The City
of Manila, through the Department of Public Services, is not
functioning in its proprietary or private capacity but rather in its
governmental or public character. In
317
VOL. 1, JANUARY 28, 1961 317
Department of Public Services Labor Unions vs. Court of Industrial
Relations
the collection and disposal of garbage, the City of Manila acts in the
interest of health, safety and advancement of the public good or
welfare as affecting the public generally.
Same; Court of Industrial Relations; Jurisdiction; Actions;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 1 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
Immunity from suit.·In the performance of its governmental
functions, a municipal corporation, like the City of Manila, acts as
an agent of the State, and, as such, it is immune from suit unless
consent thereto has been given. Such consent must be expressed in
unequivocal language. Therefore, the Industrial Court has no
jurisdiction over the petition f iled by the Department of Public
Services Labor Unions against the Mayor and the Municipal Board
of Manila for the enforcement of the fortyhour week fixed in
Republic Act No. 1880.
Administrative law; Republic Act No. 1880; Hours of work of
government employees.·The forty-hour week provided for in
Republic Act No. 1880 does not apply when the exigencies of the
service require service for a longer period.
Same; City of Manila; Power of Mayor to extend hours of work.
·The Mayor of Manila has ample authority and discretion to
extend the work schedule of employees and laborers of the City of
Manila beyond the prescribed number of days and hours of labor.
He may require the laborers of the Department of Public Services to
work seven days a week because, if said employees are given
Saturdays and Sundays and holidays as daysoff, public health and
sanitation would be undermined and endangered by the non-
collection of garbage, not to mention the foul odor that would fill the
city atmosphere during these two or more days.
Same; Administrative law; Overtime compensation.
·Employees of the Department of Public Services of the City of
Manila, who have fixed salaries or wages, have no right to overtime
compensation or -work required of them in the interest of the
service beyond the number of days and hours prescribed in Republic
Act No. 1880.
Same; Discretion of the City of Manila as to overtime
compensation.·The City of Manila may grant its employees
overtime compensation. This is a matter of administrative policy
that is discretionary and dependent on the state of the city's
finances.
Same; Eight-Hour Labor Law.·The Eight-Hour Labor Law
applies only to employment in industry or occupation for profit or
gain. It does not apply to employees of the Department of Public
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 2 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
Services of the City of Manila.
PETITION for review by certiorari of an order of the Court
of Industrial Relations.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court,
318
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Department of Public Services Labor Unions vs. Court of
Industrial Relations
Mariano M. de Joya and Luis A. Lara, Jr., for petitioner.
The City Fiscal, Manila for respondents.
Tuason & De los Reyes, for respondent Court of
Industrial Relations.
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
This is a petition for the enforcement of Republic Act 1880,
which amended section 562 of the Revised Administrative
Code, fixing, except in certain cases, the legal number of
hours of labor in every branch of the Government service as
well as in government-owned and controlled corporations
at 8 hours a day, for five days a week, or a total of 40 hours
a week. The petition, which also prays for the recovery of
overtime compensation, was filed with the Court of
Industrial Relations by the Department of Public Services
Labor Union against the Mayor and the Municipal Board of
the City of Manila.
Instead of answering, the respondents filed a motion to
dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Court of
Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over the subject-
matter of the case and that the petition states no cause of
action. The union opposed the motion, but the trial Judge,
after hearing, sustained the motion and on February 25,
1959 issued an order dismissing the petition.
Reconsideration of this order having been denied by the
court in banc, the complaining union filed the present
petition for review.
We find the petition to have been properly dismissed by
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 3 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
the court below.
The petitioning union is composed of employees and
laborers of the Department of Public Services of the City of
Manila. The principal duties and functions of said
department as defined in section 80 of the city's Revised
Charter (Republic Act No. 409, as amended), are as follows:
"(a) x x x care, custody and cleaning of all public buildings
including, markets and slaughterhouses and buildings rented for
city purposes; public toilets; collection and disposal of garbage,
refuse, contents of toilets and cesspools, and all other offensive and
dangerous substances within the city."
It is obvious from the nature of the duties imposed
319
VOL. 1, JANUARY 28, 1961 319
Department of Public Services Labor Unions vs. Court of
Industrial Relations
upon, and perf ormed by, the Department of Public Services
that the City of Manila, through that department, is not
functioning in its proprietary or private capacity, but rather
& its governmental or public character. As was held In the
case of Curry vs. City of Highland Park (242 Mich. 614, 219
N.W. 745), "The collection and disposal of garbage and
acting in conserving the public health is governmental
wherein the municipality acts for the state." This must be
so, for, surely, in the collection and disposal of garbage, the
City of Manila does not obtain any special corporate benefit
or pecuniary profit, but acts in the interest of health, safety
and the advancement of the public good or welfare as
affecting the public generally. Such being the case, it
follows that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case. The rule is settled that in the
performance of its governmental functions, a municipal
corporation, like the City of Manila, acts as an agent of the
State, and as such, is immune from suit unless consent
thereto has been given. Such consent must be expressed in
unequivocal language and here no consent of the
Government has been shown. (See Metran vs. Paredes, et
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 4 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
al.. 45 Off. Gaz. 2835).
In addition, it should be stated that the present petition
is mainly for the reduction of the working days of those
employed in the Department of Public Services to 5 days a
week, as prescribed by Republic Act No. 1880 amending
section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code, instead of
7 days as required in view of the exigencies of the service.
Said section 662 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended, provides that the legal number of hours in every
branch of the Government service as well as in government
owned and controlled corporations shall be 8 hours a day,
for 5 days a week, or a total of 40 hours a week, except
those "for school, courts, hospitals and health clinics or
where the exigencies of the service so require." The law was
implemented by Executive Order No. 251 promulgated by
the President on June 26, 1957, with the proviso that
"when the interest of the public service so require, the head
of any department, bureau, or office may extend the daily
hours of labor for any or all of the employees under him,
and may likewise require any or all of them
320
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Department of Public Services Labor Unions vs. Court of
Industrial Relations
to do overtime work not only on work days but also on
holidays." This is in accordance with section 566 of the
Revised Administrative Code. It is to be observed that
there is nothing in the law in question or in the
implementing order that imposes upon the respondent
Mayor or Municipal Board of Manila the duty to apply the
benefit of said law to all employees and laborers of the city
government. On the contrary, the law gives to the
respondent Mayor ample authority and discretion to extend
their work schedule beyond the prescribed number of days
and hours of labor. If the members of the petitioning union
are required to work seven days a week, as before the
enactment of Republic Act No. 1880, it must be because
their work is demanded by the "exigencies of the service."
Indeed, if the number of their work days is reduced, or if
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 5 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
they are given days-off on Saturdays and Sundays,
including holidays, public health and sanitation would be
undermined and endangered by the non-collection of
garbage and other refuse matters, not to mention the foul
odor that would fill the city atmosphere in those two or
more days.
Regarding petitioner's claim for overtime compensation,
section 269 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
"SEC. 259. Inhibition against payment of extra compensation.·ln
the absence of special provision, persons regularly and permanently
appointed under the Civil Service Law or whose salary, wages, or
emoluments are fixed by law or regulation shall not, for any service
rendered or labor done by them on holidays or for other overtime
work, receive or be paid any additional compensation; nor, in the
absence of special provision, shall any officer or employee in any
branch of the Government Service receive additional compensation
on account of the discharge of duties pertaining to the position of
another or for the performance of any public service whatever,
whether such service is rendered voluntarily or is exacted of him
under authority,"
The above quoted legal provision has not been amended or
modified in any way by Republic Act No. 1880. Applying the same
to the present case, it follows that since the members of the
petitioner are government employees appointed under the Civil
Service Law and their salaries,
321
VOL. 1, JANUARY 28, 1961 321
People vs. Luna
wages, or emoluments are fixed by law or ordinance, they have no
right to overtime compensation for work required of them in the
interest of the service beyond the number of days and hours
prescribed by Republic Act No. 1880. The city government may, of
course, grant its employees overtime compensation for extra hours
of work, but the granting of such compensation is, at best, a matter
of administrative policy that is discretionary and dependent upon
the city's financial conditions. At any rate, the Eight-Hour Labor
Law applies only to employment in industry or occupation
performed for profit or gain. (Marcelo, et al. vs. Philippine National
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 6 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 001 10/09/2018, 7*47 AM
Red Cross, et al., L-9448, May 23, 1957; Boy Scouts of the
Philippines vs. Araos, L-10091, January 29, 1958.) As already seen,
the City of Manila in the collection and disposal of garbage and
other refuse matters, thru the Department of Public Services, is not
engaged in an industry or occupation for profit, but exercises
governmental function, and consequently, acts as an agent of the
state.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal sought to be
reviewed is affirmed, with costs against the petitioning
union.
Bengzon, Labrador, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo and Barrera, JJ., concur in the
result.
Reyes, J.B.L. and Concepcion, JJ., did not take part.
Order affirmed.
·······
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165c0ba8f1535ee7f5c003600fb002c009e/p/AQH848/?username=Guest Page 7 of 7
