Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > August 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28891 August 30, 1968 - DBP v. ESTANISLAO D. SARTO, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-28891. August 30, 1968.]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE REFEREE, ESTANISLAO D. SARTO, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION UNIT, NO. 6, MELCHORA C. VDA. DE BRITANICO, for herself and in behalf of her minor children, Respondents.

Eufronio P. Diamante and Vicente G. Pagatoon, Jr. for Petitioner.

Antonio B. Caayao and Estanislao D. Sarto for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. — The Development Bank of the Philippines is an instrumentality of the national government, and hence its employees are covered by the provision of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

2. PUBLIC CORPORATIONS; GOVERNMENTAL AND BUSINESS ASPECTS; ID. — The Development Bank of the Philippines, like other government-owned and controlled corporations as the National Coal Company, the National Coconut Corporation and the Philippine National Bank, exercises proprietary functions and has nothing to do with the exercise of the sovereign power of the government.


R E S O L U T I O N


ZALDIVAR, J.:


On December 5, 1967 Melchora Z. Vda. de Britanico and her minor children filed a notice and claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, against respondent Development Bank of the Philippines — hereinafter referred to as DBP — with respondent Estanislao D. Sarto of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 6, at the City of Naga, Philippines, on the death of her husband Wilfredo V. Britanico on October 29, 1967 as a result of an illness contracted in line of duty in connection with his employment as records and mailing clerk of said DBP. The DBP, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the claim upon the ground that employees of the DBP are not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. Respondent referee Estanilao D. Sarto of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, on March 11, 1968, denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioner DBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the referee’s order denying the motion to dismiss the claim, but said referee denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner DBP files this petition for prohibition before this Court, praying that respondent referee Estanislao Sarto be declared without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim for death compensation and that he be enjoined from further proceeding with the hearing of the said claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Petitioner DBP, in its petition, alleges that its employees are not covered by the provision of Sec. 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 3, Applicable to Government. — This Act shall also be applicable to all officials, employees, and laborers in the service of the National Government and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities: Provided, however, that officials, laborers, and employees insured with the GSIS, and their dependents when entitled to the benefits of the said insurance system shall, in addition to the same, be entitled to the benefits granted by this Act." (As amended by R.A. No. 4119)

It is the stand of petitioner DBP that the term "National Government and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities" are those institutions through which the state exercises its sovereign power designed to carry on the essential functions of government, and that the DBP, as a government-owned or controlled corporation is not included in the term "political subdivisions and instrumentalities" of the national government.

The contention of petitioner cannot be sustained. We hold that the DBP is an instrumentality of the national government of the Republic of the Philippines. To promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people is among the functions of the government, and to perform this function the government has to act through certain agencies or instrumentalities. One such instrumentality by which the government of the Republic of the Philippines performs its function in promoting the economic development of the country is the DBP. It is admitted that the DBP is a government-owned and controlled corporation. By express provision of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2081, creating the DBP, this bank was created "to promote credit facilities for the rehabilitation and development and expansion of agriculture and industry, the reconstruction of property damaged by war and the broadening and diversification of the national economy, and to promote the establishment of private development banks in provinces and cities."cralaw virtua1aw library

The DBP has taken over the functions of the former Agricultural and Industrial Bank and the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. On June 9, 1939, by Commonwealth Act No. 459, the Agricultural and Industrial Bank was created. On October 29, 1946, by Republic Act No. 85, the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation was created, and all the powers vested in, duties conferred upon, and the capital, assets, accounts, chooses in action, etc. of the Agricultural and Industrial Bank were transferred to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. On June 14, 1958, by Republic Act No. 2081, the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation was converted into the Development Bank of the Philippines, and in Section 28 of the said Act it is provided that "whenever the phrase ‘Rehabilitation Finance Corporation’ . . ." appears in R.A. No. 85 or in any other Act or Executive Order, the same shall mean and refer to the ‘Development Bank of the Philippines’ . . . and that "upon the approval of this Act all the assets and liabilities as well as the personnel of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation are hereby transferred to the Bank."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Credito Agricola de Miagao v. Monteclaro, Et. Al. 1 this Court held that "the Agricultural and Industrial Bank, which is a government-owned and controlled corporation and which has been created to promote agricultural credit cooperative associations cannot be said to exercise a sovereign function." It follows that the DBP, which has taken over the functions of the Agricultural and Industrial Bank — which later became the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation — cannot be said to exercise a portion of the sovereign power of the government. The DBP only exercises proprietary function, as an instrumentality of the government. In the same way that this Court has held that other government-owned and controlled corporations, like the National Coal Company, 2 the National Coconut Corporation, 3 and the Philippine National Bank, 4 simply exercise proprietary functions and have nothing to do with the exercise of political sovereignty, so the DBP simply exercises proprietary functions and has nothing to do with the exercise of the sovereign power of the government.

The DBP, therefore, being an instrumentality of the national government of the Republic of the Philippines, it follows that its employees are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, under Section 3 of said Act, as amended.

This Court, therefore, finds the instant petition for prohibition without merit, and resolves to dismiss the same. It is so ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 74 Phil. 281.

2. National Coal Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil. 586; Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer, 50 Phil. 288.

3. Bacani, Et Al., v. National Coconut Corporation, 100 Phil. 568, 573-574.

4. Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine National Bank, L- 16485, January 30, 1965.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23129 August 2, 1968 - ISIDRA FARAON, ET AL v. TOMAS PRIELA

  • G.R. No. L-27260 August 8, 1968 - NAMARCO, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20872 August 10, 1968 - DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ v. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA

  • G.R. No. L-19791 August 14, 1968 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24954 August 14, 1968 - CITY OF NAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25729 August 14, 1968 - PERFECTO CORDERO, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25295 August 14, 1968 - CONCORDIA T. ARONG v. CONRADA SENO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24493 August 14, 1968 - ADOLFO C. NAVARRO v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-27205 August 15, 1968 - PCI BANK v. JUAN GRIÑO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29044 August 15, 1968 - WORKMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19880 August 15, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19149 August 16, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29169 August 19, 1968 - ROGER CHAVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24774 August 21, 1968 - RAUL CIPRIANO v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-28903 August 22, 1968 - MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. SANTIAGO YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 24116-17 August 22, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28511 August 22, 1968 - ARTURO SERIÑA v. CFI OF BUKIDNON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24845 August 22, 1968 - ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA v. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23768 August 23, 1968 - JOSE GARRIDO v. PILAR G. TUASON

  • A.C. No. 549 August 26, 1968 - MAXIMA C. LOPEZ v. MANUEL B. CASACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-19490 August 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19737 August 26, 1968 - HENG TONG TEXTILES CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24405 August 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DINGALAN FOREST PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28188 August 27, 1968 - J.M. JAVIER LOGGING CORP. v. ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28613 August 27, 1968 - AMBROCIO LACUNA v. BENJAMIN H. ABES

  • G.R. No. L-25029 August 28, 1968 - PROCESO VINLUAN v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22814 August 28, 1968 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHIL. INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22822 August 30, 1968 - GREGORIA PALANCA v. AMERICAN FOOD MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968 - JUANITO CARLOS v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23482 August 30, 1968 - ALFONSO LACSON v. CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23541 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO GUARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23979 August 30, 1968 - HOMEOWNERS’ ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF MLA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24165 August 30, 1968 - JUAN M. SERRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24189 August 30, 1968 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. SAÑGILO-ITOGON WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24471 August 30, 1968 - SILVERIO MARCHAN, ET AL v. ARSENIO MENDOZA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22766 August 30, 1968 - SURIGAO ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL v. MUN. OF SURIGAO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22212 August 30, 1968 - FARM IMPLEMENT & MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25049 August 30, 1968 - FILEMON RAMIREZ, ET AL v. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28223 August 30, 1968 - MECH. DEPT. LABOR UNION SA PHIL. NATL. RAILWAYS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28891 August 30, 1968 - DBP v. ESTANISLAO D. SARTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25059 August 30, 1968 - FOITAF v. ANGEL MOJICA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28751 August 30, 1968 - JOSE TUBURAN v. FRANK BALLENER, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26197 August 30, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22769 August 30, 1968 - JUAN ISBERTO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21965 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO S. GERVACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22183 August 30, 1968 - RECEIVER FOR NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. INC. v. PEDRO V. YBAÑEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-22359 & L-22524-25 August 30, 1968 - MATEO CORONEL, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29223 August 30, 1968 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20495 August 31, 1968 - BELEN CRUZ v. LUIS M. SIMON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20831 August 31, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL v. LUIS U. GO

  • G.R. No. L-23023 August 31, 1968 - JOSE P. STA. ANA v. FLORENTINO MALIWAT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24884 August 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIO PELAGO Y BEKILLA

  • G.R. No. L-24606 August 31, 1968 - JOSE T. JAMANDRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL