Scribd
Upload
223 views2 pages

Bureau of Printing, Vs Bopea GR No. L-15751 1-28-2016 1 Scra 340

The Bureau of Printing Employees Association filed a complaint against the Bureau of Printing alleging unfair labor practices. The Bureau of Printing denied the charges and claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction because as a government agency, the Bureau cannot be sued without its consent. The trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction, finding the Bureau's functions to be "exclusively proprietary in nature." On appeal, the Supreme Court decided that the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued as it has no corporate or juridical personality. While the Bureau receives some private jobs, this does not make its functions wholly proprietary and it remains a government agency performing general governmental functions.

Uploaded by

Khryz Callëja
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
223 views2 pages

Bureau of Printing, Vs Bopea GR No. L-15751 1-28-2016 1 Scra 340

The Bureau of Printing Employees Association filed a complaint against the Bureau of Printing alleging unfair labor practices. The Bureau of Printing denied the charges and claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction because as a government agency, the Bureau cannot be sued without its consent. The trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction, finding the Bureau's functions to be "exclusively proprietary in nature." On appeal, the Supreme Court decided that the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued as it has no corporate or juridical personality. While the Bureau receives some private jobs, this does not make its functions wholly proprietary and it remains a government agency performing general governmental functions.

Uploaded by

Khryz Callëja
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE TITLE: BUREAU OF PRINTING, petitioners

VS.
BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
respondents
G.R. NO. L-15751,
JANUARY 28, 2016
1 SCRA 340
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Upon complaint of Bureau of Printing Employees Association against
Bureau of Printing for an alleged unfair labor practices by interfering with, or
coercing the employees of the bureau particularly the members of the
complaining association, in the exercise of their right to self-organization and
discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to
discourage them from pursuing union activities.
Answering the complaints, Bureau of printing denied the charges of
unfair labor practices attributed to the and, by way of affirmative defense,
alleged, among other things that the respondents were suspended pending results
of an administrative investigation against them for breach of CSC rules and
regulations petition; that the Bureau has no juridical personality to sue and be
sued; that the said bureau is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of
gain but is an agency of the Republic of the Philippines performing government
functions. The petitioner prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Thereafter, before the case be heard, petitioner filed Omnibus Motion i asking
for preliminary hearing on the question of jurisdiction raise by them and for
suspension of the trial of the case on the merits pending the determination of such
jurisdiction. The motion was granted, but after hearing, the trial judge issued an
order sustaining the jurisdiction of the court on the theory that functions of the

bureau are exclusively proprietary in nature. The court denied the prayer for
dismissal. Reconsideration of order was also denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Bureau of Printing may be sued.
DECISION:
NO. As matter of fact, 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 produces 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.
It is correct that the Bureau receives outside jobs and that many
employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and on holidays,
but these facts do not justify the conclusion that its functions are exclusively
proprietary in nature overtime work on the bureau is done only when the interest
of the service so requires. As a matter of administrative policy, the overtime may
be paid out of its current appropriations but such payment is discretionary on the
part of the head of the Bureau, so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the
functions of the Bureau are wholly proprietary in nature. Evidently, while the
Bureau is allowed to undertake printing jobs, it cannot be pretended that it is
thereby an industrial business concern. 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 employees performing
said proprietary function are separate and distict from those employed in its
general governmental fuctions.

i An omnibus motion is an application by a defendant asking the court to examine a case from
certain legal aspects. The intent is to ascertain whether or not some provisions of state or federal law
were violated.

You might also like