Topic: Public, Pivate Institutions NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION vs. B N!A"IN !UCO AN# TH NLRC [G.R. No. L$%&'('.

!anua)* (+, (,-../ Ponente: GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: Natu)e: This is a complaint for illegal dismissal, with preliminary mandatory inj nction against the !ational "o sing #orporation $!"#%. 0acts: &enjamin #. J co was a project engineer of !ational "o sing #orporation $!"#% from !o'em(er )*, )+,- to .ay )/, )+,0. "owe'er, on .ay )/, )+,0, he was separated from the ser'ice for ha'ing (een implicated in a crime of theft and1or mal'ersation of p (lic f nds. J co then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the!"# with the 2epartment of 3a(or. The 3a(or 4r(iter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the gro nd that the !3R# had no j risdiction o'er the case. "ence, J co ele'ated the case to the !3R# which re'ersed the decision of the 3a(or 4r(iter. !"# appealed the !3R# decision (efore the 5 preme #o rt which in t rn granted the petition setting aside the !3R# decision and reinstating the la(or ar(iter6sdecision of dismissing the case. J co filed with the #i'il 5er'ice #ommission a complaint for illegal dismissal, with preliminary mandatory inj nction. !"# mo'ed for the dismissal of the complaint on the gro nd that the #i'il 5er'ice #ommission has no j risdiction o'er the case. #5# granted the motion to dismiss on the gro nd of lac7 of j risdiction. J co filed with !3R# a complaint for illegal dismissal with preliminary mandatory inj nction against !"#. !3R# find !"# g ilty of illegal dismissal. !"# appealed (efore the !3R# and !3R# prom lgated a decision which re'ersed the decision of the 3a(or 4r(iter on the gro nd of lac7 of j risdiction Issue: 8hether or not the employees of the !ational "o sing #orporation $!"#% are co'ered (y the 3a(or #ode. Rulin1: !9. Under the laws then in force, employees of go'ernment:owned and1orcontrolled corporations were go'erned (y the #i'il 5er'ice 3aw and not (y the 3a(or #ode. The !"# is a one h ndred percent $)--;% go'ernment:owned corporation organi<ed in accordance with the Uniform #harter of Go'ernment #orporations. The go'ernment has (een the only stoc7holder from its creation to the present. There sho ld no longer (e any = estion at this time that employees of go'ernment:owned or controlled corporations are go'erned (y the ci'il ser'ice law and ci'il ser'ice r les and reg lations as pro'ided for (y 5ection ), 4rticle >II:& of the #onstit tion. The incl sion of ?go'ernment:owned or controlled corporations? within the em(race of the ci'il ser'ice shows a deli(erate effort of the framers to pl g an earlier loophole which allowed go'ernment:owned or controlled corporations to a'oid the f ll conse= ences of the an encompassing co'erage of the ci'il ser'ice system. The same e@plicit intent is shown (y the addition of ?agency? and ?instr mentality? to (ranches and s (di'isions of the Go'ernment. 4ll offices and firms of the go'ernment are co'ered. The constit tional pro'ision has (een implemented (y stat te. 5ection 0* of Aresidential 2ecree !o. B-, is ne= i'ocal that personnel of go'ernment:owned or controlled corporations (elong to the ci'il ser'ice and are s (ject to ci'il ser'ice re= irements. 4pplying the pro'isions of the #onstit tion, the 3a(or #ode as amended, and the #i'il 5er'ice 2ecree as amended and the precedent in the Alliance of Government Workers decision, it is clear that the petitioner !ational "o sing #orporation comes nder the j risdiction of the #i'il 5er'ice #ommission, not the .inistry of 3a(or and Employment. This (ecomes more apparent if we consider the fact that the !"# performs go'ernmental f nctions and not proprietary ones. The fact that ?pri'ate? corporations owned or controlled (y the go'ernment may (e created (y special charter does not mean that s ch corporations not created (y special law are not co'ered (y the ci'il ser'ice. !or does the decree repealing all charters and special laws granting e@emption from the ci'il ser'ice law imply that go'ernment corporations not created (y special law are e@empt from ci'il ser'ice co'erage. These charters and stat tes are the only laws granting s ch e@emption and, therefore, they are the only ones which co ld (e repealed. There was no similar e@empting pro'ision in the general law which called for repeal. 4nd finally, the fact that the #onstit tional #on'ention disc ssed only corporations created (y special law or charter cannot (e an arg ment to e@cl de petitioner !"# from ci'il ser'ice co'erage.

#ispositive Po)tion: 8"EREC9RE, the petition is here(y GR4!TE2. The = estioned decision of the respondent !ational 3a(or Relations #ommission is 5ET 45I2E. The decision of the 3a(or 4r(iter dismissing the case (efore it for lac7 of j risdiction is REI!5T4TE2. 59 9R2ERE2.