Bureau of Printing vs Bureau of Printing Employees Association

G.R. No. L-15751 January 28, 1961

1 SCRA 340 Facts: Upon complaint of the respondents of the Bureau of Printing Employees Association against the Bureau of Printing, the complaint alleged that the latter have been engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering with, or coercing their employees, in the exercise of their right to self-organization and discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to discourage themfrom pursuing the union activities. The Petitioners of Bureau of Printing denied the charges of unfair labor practices attributed to and, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged, among other things, that the respondents of the Bureau of Printing Employees Association were suspending the pending result of an administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations petition; that the Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and be sued; that said bureau is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but is an agency of the Republic performing government functions. The petitioners filed an "Omnibus Motion" asking for a preliminary hearing on the question of jurisdiction raised by them in their answer and for suspension of the trial of the case on the merits pending the determination of such jurisdical question. Issue: Whether or not the Bureau of Printing, in the proceeding in the action for unfair labor practice, lacks jurisdiction thereof. Held: The trial judge of the Industrial Court in an order dated January 27, 1959 sustained the jurisdiction of the court on the theory that the functions of the Bureau of Printing are "exclusively proprietary in nature,". The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by the National Government and such other work of the same character as said Bureau may, by law or by order of the Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake...". It has no corporate existence, and its appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations Act. Designed to meet the printing needs of the Government, it is primarily a service bureau and obviously, not engaged in business or occupation for pecuniary profit. Overtime work in the Bureau of Printing 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. The additional work it executes for private parties is merely incidental to its function, and although such work may be deemed proprietary in character, there is no showing that the employees performing said proprietary function are separate and distinct from those employed in its general governmental functions. As an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. 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 objection.

Farolan vs Court of Tax Appeals G.R. No. 42204 January 21, 1993 217 SCRA 298

Facts: On January 30, 1972 at the Port of Manila, S/S Pacific Hawk vessel with Registry No. 170 arrived carrying among others, 80 bales of screen net consigned to Baging Buhay Trading (Baging Buhay). The import was classified under Tariff Heading no. 39.06-B of the Tariff and Customs Code at 35% ad valorem. Bagong Buhay paid the duties and taxes due in the amount of P11,350.00 dated February 1, 1972. The Office of the Collector of Customs ordered a re-examination of the shipment upon hearing the information that the shipment consisted of mosquito net made of nylon under Tariff Heading No. 62.02 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Upon re-examination, report shows that the shipment was undervalued in quantity, quality and of value. The Collector of Customs determined the subject shipment is classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 51.04-B at 100% ad valorem and thus, forfeited the shipment in favor of the government. Private respondent filed a petition on August 20, 1976 for the release of the questioned goods which the Court denied. On June 2, 1986, 64 bales out of the 80 bales were released to Bagong Buhay Trading after several motion. The sixteen remaining bales were missing. The respondent claims that of the 143,454 yards released, only 116,950 yards were in good condition and the rest were not. Thus, respondents demands that the Bureau of Customs be ordered to pay for damages for the 43,050 yards it actually lost. Issue: Whether or not the Collector of Customs may be held liable for the 43,050 yards actually lost by the private respondent. Held: Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for actual damages that the private respondent sustained with regard to its goods. Otherwise, to permit private respondent's claim to prosper would violate the doctrine of state immunity. Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs should pay for actual damages it sustained, the ultimately liability falls to the government, this case has been converted technically into a suit against the state. On this point, the political doctrine that state may not be sued without its consent, applies. As an unincorporated government agency without any separate judicial personality of its own, the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit. Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely, taxation. As an agency, the Bureau of Customs performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is not a proprietary function. Thus private respondents claim for damages against the Commissioner of Customs must fails.

Mobil Philippines Exploration vs Customs Arrastre Service G.R. No. L-23139 December 17,1966 18 SCRA 1120

Facts: Sometime during the month of November 1962, four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. ''Leoville'' consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., Manila. It was dishcarged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre Service, the unit of the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre operations. The Customs Arrastre Service later delivered to the broker of the consignee three cases only. Petitioner then filed a suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Customs to recover the value of undelivered case plus other damages thereof. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that not being persons under the law, they cannot be sued. Issue: Whether or not the defendants can invoke state immunity. Held: YES. If an agency's function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the primary and government function of such agency, such agency is not suable. If an agency performs a non-governmental function and is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the state immunity from suit extended to such government entity. The Bureau of Customs is part of the Department of Finance with no personality of its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, such as assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and custom duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties. To this function, arrastre service is a necessary incident. Department of Agriculture vs National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993 227 SCRA 693 Facts: Department of Agriculture and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract for security services for the government entity. September 13, 1990, several guards of the security agency filed a complaint for under payment of 13th month pay, unifrom allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay and overtime pay, as well as for damages before the Regional Arbitration Branch in Cagayan de Oro City. The Labor Arbiter found the Department of Agriculture jointly and liable with Sultan Agency for the payment of money claim of the guards. Department of Agriculture filed a petition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary injunction with the National Labor Relations Commission Cagayan de Oro. It argued that the writ of execution was effected without the Labor Arbiter having duly acquired jurisdiction over the said department. Hence, its decision was null and void. National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the petition. Thus provoked the Department of Agriculture to charge National Labor Relations Commission for grave abuse of discretion for refusing to reject the writ of execution. It argued that money claims against the department falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Department of Agriculture asserts that National Labor Relations Commission has disregarded the cardinal rule on the non-suability of the state. National Labor Relations Commission, on the other hand, argue that the petitioner has impliedly waived its immunity from suit by concluding a service contract with Sultan Security Agency. Issue: Whether or not the Department of Agriculture can be sued. Held: Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign functions and another which is done in the proprietary capacity. State gives consent upon financial claims arising from a contract. Under Act No. 3038, a general law, the State consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied. However, the money claim must first be brought to the Commission on Audit. Wherefore, the petition is granted.