CASE # 32

MAGASO, DENIELL CANDA

TOPIC:

CASE: THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT and COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (ACCFA), vs. ACCFA
SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, ACCFA WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, and THE COURT OFINDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS. G.R. No. L-21484, November 29, 1969

The UNION, which comprises of the ACCFA Supervisors’ Association (ASA) and ACCFA
workers’ association (AWA) along with The Confederation of Unions in Government
Corporations and Offices (CUCGO) filed a complaint against the Agricultural Credit
Administration (ACA) formerly ACCFA, on grounds of allegedly violating the collective bargaining
agreement between the UNION and ACA through acts of unfair labor practices to discourage
the UNION from exercising its rights to self-organization, discrimination of its members in
matters of promotions, and refusal to bargain.

FACTS
A collective bargaining agreement was entered into between ACA (Organization) and the
UNION (ASA and AWA) on September 4, 1961, which would take place one (1) year from July
1,1961. A few months shortly, the UNION protested the ACA on grounds of allegedly violating its
rights to organization, promotion, and refusal to bargain. The ACA in response, denied the
accusations made by the petitioners and further claimed that the ability to enforce the said
agreement was beyond the Jurisdiction of the ruling court at the time, the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR).

In this regard, the ruling court brushed the defense aside and ordered the ACA to
comply with the following:
1) to cease and desist from their acts pertaining to discouraging UNION members from the
exercise of their rights.
2) honor the agreed provisions stated in the collective agreement as well as award pecuniary
compensation in the amount of Php. 30.00 for living allowance.
3) To bargain in good faith and expeditiously with the complainants.

ISSUE
1) Whether the CIR has jurisdiction over the case to entertain the petition of the Unions for
certification election and enforce the collective agreement between the petitioner and
respondents.
RULING
YES, the court ruled that CIR was well in its jurisdiction to entertain and the petitions of
the UNIONS in regards to the collective bargaining agreement made on September 4, 1961
under R.A 3844 (Land Reform Code) which was signed into effect by the president of the
Philippines during the pendency of the case highlights the functions and privileges of
government agency through sections 110-118,103,105,106,107-112, and 113-118.