BUREAU OF PRINTING VS BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOC

GR NO. L-15751, JANUARY 28, 1961

FACTS: the action in question was upon complaint of the respondents Bureau of
Printing Employees Assoc Pacifico Advincula, Ryoberto Mendoza, Ponciano Arganda,
and Teodulo Toleran filed by the acting prosecutor of Industrial Court against
herein petitioner Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador, Acting Secretary of Dept of
General Services, and Mariano Ledesma, Director of Printing. The complaint alleged
that Salvador and Ledesma have been engaging in unfair labor practice by
interfering with or coercing the employees of the Bureau of Printing, particularly the
members of the complaining association petition, in the exercise of their right to
self-organization and discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment.

Petitioners denied charges of unfair labor practice and alleged that

respondents suspended pending result of an administrative investigation against
them; that Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and be sued; said
Bureau is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but is an
agency of the Republic performing governmental functions. Petitioners prayed for
dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: whether or not Bureau of Printing can be sued

HELD: No, Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the

Administrative Code of 1916. As such instrumentality, it operates under the direct
supervision of Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is charged with the
execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes.
It has no corporate existence. It is primarily a service bureau and obviously, not
engaged in business or occupation for pecuniary profit. Hence, the CIR has no
jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint for unfair labor practice filed
against an institution or corporation not engaged for profit.

Clearly, while Bureau of Printing is allowed to undertake private printing jobs,

it cannot be pretended that it is thereby an industrial or business concern. The
additional work it executes for private parties is merely incidental to its function.

As an office of the government, without any corporate of juridical personality,

the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. Any suit against it, if it were to produce an
effect, would be a suit against the Government itself. The rule is settled that
Government cannot be sued without its consent.
 TORIO VS FONTANILLA

GR NO L-30183, OCTOBER 23, 1978

FACTS: October 21, 1978, the municipal council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan

passed a Resolution No 159 whereby resolved to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town
fiesta celebration on January 21-23 1959. Res. No 182 was also passed creating
1959 Malasiqui Town Fiesta Exec Com and Jose Macaraeg as Chairman. The
council appropriated the amount of 100 for the construction og 2 stages, zarzuela(5
meters and 8m in size, wooden floor, supported 24 bamboo posts) and
cancionan, and Jose Macaraeg supervised the construction of the stage.

Zarzuela entitled Midas Extravaganza was donated by an assoc of Malasiqui

employees of Manila Railroad Company in Caloocan Rizal. The troupe arrived in the
evening of Jan 22 for the performance, and one of the members was Vicente
Fontanilla. Program started 10:15pm. But before the dramatic part of the play was
reached, the stage collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of the
stage was pinned underneath. The heirs of Fontanilla filed a complaint with Court
of First Instance of Manila to recover damages and the named defendants were
the Municipality of Malasiqui, Municipal Council and all members of Municipal
Council 1959.

Defendant invoked the principal defense that a legally and duly organized
public corporation it performs sovereign functions and holding of a town fiesta was
an exercise of its governmental functions which no liability can ariseto answer for
the negligence of any of its agents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the celebration of a town fiesta authorized by a

municipal council under Sec 2282 of Municipal Law is a proprietary function of the
municipality

WON the municipality of Malasiqui is liable

HELD: Yes, under the Philippine laws, municipalities are political bodies
endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and
through their respective government in conformity with law, and their proper
corporate name, they may sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted with.

The powers of municipality are two-fold in character: public, governmental, or

political on one hand, and corporate, private or proprietary on the other.
Governmental power are those exercised by the corporation in administering
powers of the stage and promoting the public welfare that include legislative,
political, judicial, and public. Municipal powers are exercised for the special benefit
and advantage of the community. These include those which are ministerial, private
and corporate. The distinction is necessary in determining the liability of
municipality for the acts of the agent which result in injury against third person.

If injury is caused in the course of the performance of a governmental

function or duty, no recovery can be had from the municipality unless there is
existing statute on the matter, nor from its officers, so long as they perform their
duties honestly and in good faith. With respect to proprietary functions, the settles
rules is that a municipal corporation can be held liable to third persons ex contract
or ex delicto. They may also be subject to suit upon contract and its tort.

We hold that the town fiesta in 1959 by the municipality of Malasiqui

Pangasinan was an exercise of a private or proprietary function of the municipality.
Town fiesta is in essence an act for the special benefit of the community and not for
the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of a policy of the state.