Author: Patrick Arcellana Petition: Petition for Certiorari Petitioner: PVTA et al Respondent: CIR et al Ponencia: Fernando DOCTRINE: Government;

Functions; Unincorporated Facts: 1. December 20, 1966- Private respondents filed with respondent Court a petition wherein they alleged their employment relationship, the OT services in excess of 8 hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay them compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 44. 2. Their prayer was for the differential of the amount paid to them and the amount allegedly due them. 3. PVTA, petitioner, denied allegations and raised as a defense that there was a lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction by the court. 4. Both parties submitted their evidences and then Presiding Judge Arsenio T. Martinez ordered that private respondents could sustain their claims for overtime services and petitioner must pay the same minus what it had already paid. 5. PVTA petitioned for a motion for reconsideration but was denied and so this is a petition for certiorari. PVTA contented that CIR is beyond jurisdiction because PVTA is

exercising governmental, not proprietary functions and that it is exempt from Commonwealth Act no. 444. Issue: WON PVTA discharges governmental and not proprietary functions. Provisions: RA 2265: : "(a) To promote the effective merchandising of
Virginia tobacco in the domestic and foreign markets so that those engaged in the industry will be placed on a basis of economic security; (b) To establish and maintain balanced production and consumption of Virginia tobacco and its manufactured products, and such marketing conditions as will insure and stabilize the price of a level sufficient to cover the cost of production plus reasonable profit both in the local as well as in the foreign market; (c) To create, establish, maintain, and operate processing, warehousing and marketing facilities in suitable centers and supervise the selling and buying of Virginia tobacco so that the farmers will enjoy reasonable prices that secure a fair return of their investments; (d) To prescribe rules and regulations governing the grading, classifying, and inspecting of Virginia tobacco; and (e) To improve the living and economic conditions of the people engaged in the tobacco industry." RA 4155: "It is declared to be the national policy, with respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry, to encourage the production of local Virginia tobacco of the qualities needed and in quantities marketable in both domestic and foreign markets, to establish this industry on an efficient and economic basis, and to create a climate conducive to local cigarette manufacture of the qualities desired by the consuming public, blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to improve the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes."

Ruling + Ratio: Yes, PVTA discharges governmental functions. But the respondent court still has jurisdiction because the difference between constituent and ministrant functions have been rendered quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete.

The RA 2265, and the amendatory statute, RA 4155 render the nature of PVTA as a governmental agency and explain why they invoked the doctrine announced in the ACCFA decision. These statutory provisions also made the objection of private respondents with the distinction between constituent and ministrant, as set forth in Bacani v. NACOCO case futile. This does not mean however that this is beyond jurisdiction of the respondent court. The Chief Justice pointed out the irrelevance of the distinction considering the needs of times. The CJ said that it is different from President Wilsons description as such that the growing complexities of modern society have rendered the traditional classification unrealistic and obsolete. The doctrine in Bacani v. NACOCO was then laid to rest. The Wilsonian phrase has now lapsed into innocuous desuetude (harmless disuse)." Based on a subsequent case (Naric Worker's Union v. Hon. Alvendia) relying on Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Tan, which specified the cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR, included among which is one that involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, ruled that it is precisely respondent Court and not ordinary courts that should pass upon that particular labor controversy. The contention of petitioner that the Eight-Hour Labor Law does not apply to it, hardly deserves consideration. The casualness of the petition shows a weakness of the plea rather than an enviable talent for concision by the advocate. If as a result of the appealed order, financial burden would have to be borne by petitioner, it has only itself to blame. OT need not be required from private respondents. It can hardly be surmised that one of its chief problems is paucity of personnel. That would indeed be a cause for

astonishment. It would appear; therefore, that such an objection based on this ground certainly cannot suffice for a reversal. Disposition: Denial for motion of reconsideration by petitioner affirmed. Petition denied.