[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
97 views1 page

Accfa V Cugco G.R. No. L-21484

The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was transformed into the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code. Several unions, along with the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint against ACCFA for alleged unfair labor practices. The court ruled that the unions do not have the right to commence a collective bargaining agreement with ACA, formerly ACCFA, as Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875 prohibits strikes against the government. As such, the unions are not entitled to the certification election sought to bargain collectively with ACA, and no further fringe benefits can be demanded based on any previous collective bargaining agreement.

Uploaded by

Ciara Tralala Calungsud
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
97 views1 page

Accfa V Cugco G.R. No. L-21484

The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was transformed into the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code. Several unions, along with the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint against ACCFA for alleged unfair labor practices. The court ruled that the unions do not have the right to commence a collective bargaining agreement with ACA, formerly ACCFA, as Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875 prohibits strikes against the government. As such, the unions are not entitled to the certification election sought to bargain collectively with ACA, and no further fringe benefits can be demanded based on any previous collective bargaining agreement.

Uploaded by

Ciara Tralala Calungsud
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/ 1

THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (ACCFA)

vs.
CONFEDERATION OF UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND OFFICES (CUGCO), et. al.
G.R. No. L-21484 (29 Nov G.R. No. L-21484 1969)

Makalintal, J.:

Facts:
The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was a government
agency created under Republic Act No. 821, as amended. Its administrative machinery was reorganized
and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administration(ACA) under the Land Reform Code (Republic
Act No. 3844). On September 4, 1961 a collective bargaining agreement, which was to be effective for a
period of one (1) year was entered into by and between the Unions and the ACCFA. A few months
thereafter, the Unions started protesting against alleged violations and non-implementation of said
agreement. Thereafter Unions declared a strike, which was ended when the strikers voluntarily
returned to work. The Unions, together with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in
Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations
against the ACCFA for having allegedly committed acts of unfair labor practice.

Issue:
Whether or not, the Unions and CUGCO had the right to commence a CBA with ACA, formerly ACCFA.

Ruling: NO. We hold that the respondent Unions are not entitled to the certification election
sought in the Court below. Such certification is admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf of the
employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including the right to strike as a
coercive economic weapon, as in fact the said unions did strike in 1962 against the ACCFA. This is
contrary to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875, which provides for the prohibition against to strike in the
government. With the reorganization of the ACCFA and its conversion into the ACA under the Land
Reform Code and in view of our ruling as to the governmental character of the functions of the ACA,
the decision of the respondent Court dated March 25, 1963, and the resolution en banc affirming
it, in the unfair labor practice case filed by the ACCFA, which decision is the subject of the present
review in G. R. No. L-21484, has become moot and academic, particularly insofar as the order to
bargain collectively with the respondent Unions is concerned. The respondent Unions have no right to
the certification election sought by them nor, consequently, to bargain collectively with the petitioner,
no further fringe benefits may be demanded on the basis of any collective bargaining agreement.

You might also like