Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Bureau of Printing

    Uploaded by

    Elden Cunanan Bonilla
    The Bureau of Printing Employees Association filed a complaint against the Bureau of Printing and its director, alleging unfair labor practices. The Bureau of Printing denied the charges and argued the court lacked jurisdiction over a government agency. The trial court found it had jurisdiction, reasoning the Bureau's commercial functions made it "proprietary in nature". However, the Supreme Court granted the Bureau's petition, finding as a government office it could not be sued without consent. The Court set aside the trial court's orders and dismissed the complaint, as the Bureau's overtime work was discretionary and did not make its functions wholly proprietary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bureau of Printing

    Uploaded by

    Elden Cunanan Bonilla
    98 views1 page
    The Bureau of Printing Employees Association filed a complaint against the Bureau of Printing and its director, alleging unfair labor practices. The Bureau of Printing denied the charges and argued the court lacked jurisdiction over a government agency. The trial court found it had jurisdiction, reasoning the Bureau's commercial functions made it "proprietary in nature". However, the Supreme Court granted the Bureau's petition, finding as a government office it could not be sued without consent. The Court set aside the trial court's orders and dismissed the complaint, as the Bureau's overtime work was discretionary and did not make its functions wholly proprietary.

    Original Description:

    Bureau of Printing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Bureau of Printing Employees Association filed a complaint against the Bureau of Printing and its director, alleging unfair labor practices. The Bureau of Printing denied the charges and argued the court lacked jurisdiction over a government agency. The trial court found it had jurisdiction, reasoning the Bureau's commercial functions made it "proprietary in nature". However, the Supreme Court granted the Bureau's petition, finding as a government office it could not be sued without consent. The Court set aside the trial court's orders and dismissed the complaint, as the Bureau's overtime work was discretionary and did not make its functions wholly proprietary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views1 page

    Bureau of Printing

    Uploaded by

    Elden Cunanan Bonilla
    The Bureau of Printing Employees Association filed a complaint against the Bureau of Printing and its director, alleging unfair labor practices. The Bureau of Printing denied the charges and argued the court lacked jurisdiction over a government agency. The trial court found it had jurisdiction, reasoning the Bureau's commercial functions made it "proprietary in nature". However, the Supreme Court granted the Bureau's petition, finding as a government office it could not be sued without consent. The Court set aside the trial court's orders and dismissed the complaint, as the Bureau's overtime work was discretionary and did not make its functions wholly proprietary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    BUREAU OF PRINTING, SERAFIN SALVADOR and MARIANO LEDESMA, petitioners, vs.

    THE
    BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NLU), PACIFICO ADVINCULA, ROBERTO
    MENDOZA, PONCIANO ARGANDA and TEODULO TOLERAN, respondents.
    G.R. No. L-15751 | 1961-01-28

    Facts: BPEA (respondents) filed a complaint by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial


    Court against petitioners BOP (secretary of Department of General Services and
    Director of BOP). The complaint alleged that both the secretary of DOG (Salvador) and
    the director of BOP (Ledesma) have been engaging in unfair labor practices. Answering
    the complaint, the petitioners (BOP), denied the charges of unfair labor practices
    attributed to them and alleged that the BPEA complainants were suspended pending
    result of administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and
    regulations; that the BOP is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain
    but of the republic performing governmental functions. For relief, they prayed that the
    case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But later on January 27, 1959, the trial judge
    of Industrial Court sustained the jurisdiction of the court on the theory that the
    functions of the BOP are exclusively proprietary in nature, since they receives outside
    jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working
    days and holidays, therefore consequently denied the prayed for dismissal, which
    brought the petitioners (BOP) to present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
    Issue: Whether or not the BOP can be sued.
    Held: As an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality,
    the BOP cannot be sued (Sec.1, Rule 33, Rules of court).
    It is true that BOP receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid for
    overtime work on regular working days and holidays, but these facts do not justify the
    conclusion that its functions are exclusively proprietary in nature. Overtime work in
    the BOP 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.
    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 jurisdiction.
    Disposition: The petition for a writ of prohibition is granted. The orders complained of
    are set aside and the complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioners is
    dismissed, with costs against respondents other than the respondent court.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy