This is a  petition by the Government  Service Insurance System  for  a writ  of  prohibition  with  preliminary injunction, to enjoin Honorable Modesto Castillo, as associate judge of the Court of Industrial Eelations, from hearing and further proceeding with CIR case No.  895-V, for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in controversy.

On February 17,  195S, the respondent Association submitted to the  Board of Trustees of the petitioner fourteen demands which included, among other things,  the adoption of a scale of  salaries with a minimum  of P200 a  month, the continuation  of the grant  of family allowance, free hospitalization and medicine  in  case of sickness, extension of regular appointments to temporary and emergency employees,  additional  compensation at 50  per cent of basic pay  for overtime work during Sundays and holidays  and 25 per cent during  regular days, and the creation of the positions of general manager  and general  actuary.  As the board resolved to withhold  action on the  matter, the respondent association decided to declare a strike.  Whereupon the Secretary of Labor called the parties to a conciliation conference  wherein'  four of  the demands  were granted.  Still dissatisfied, the members of the respondent association declared a strike on June 17, 1953, when the Secretary of Labor certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations, becoming CIR case No. 895-V.  On July  10, 1953, the  petitioner  filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the members of the respondent association are civil service employees whose demands, being covered by the Civil Service Law, are outside  of the jurisdiction of the Court of  Industrial  Relations.  The court denied  the motion and set the case for hearing,

The  petitioner now contends that it  is  engaged in  the performance of a governmental function of the State, and invokes the case of National Airports Corporation vs. Honorable Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. * G. R. No.  L-5122, decided on April 30, 1952.   Far from supporting petitioner's case, this citation rather serves to define  its status as a private concern  (though of course government-owned or controlled), because  it was therein ruled:

"The Civil Aeronautics Administration  comes under the category of a private entity.  Although not a body corporate it was created, like the  National Airports Corporation, not to maintain a necessary function of government but  to run what is  essentially  a business, even if revenues be not its prime objective but rather the promotion of travel and the convenience of the travelling public.  It is engaged in an enterprise which, far from being  the  exclusive prerogative of the state, may, more than the  construction of public roads, be undertaken by private concerns."

As a matter of fact, the petitioner (Government Service Insurance System)  was created by virtue of Commonwealth Act No.  186, as  amended by Republic Act No. 660, as a non-stock corporation,  managed  by a  Board of Trustees exercising the. "usual corporate powers."   As a non-stock corporation, it is  governed by Executive Order No. 399, otherwise known as  Uniform  Charter  for  Government Corporation, section 4 of which grants the following general powers:

"(a) To do all such other things and  to  transact all such business directly  or indirectly  necessary,  incidental  or  conducive  to  the attainment of  the purposes of the corporation;  and

"(b) Generally, to exercise all the powers of  a  corporation under ' the Corporation, Law  in so far as  they are not  inconsistent with the provisions of this Order."

And in Abad Santos vs. Auditor General,  79 Phil., 190, the petitioner was spqken of as  "*   *   *   uri verdadero negocio, una empreaa giganteca. en que estan vitalmente  interesados mile's  de clientes * * * " , We need  only add, to show, that the petitioner is in  error, that its business of  insurance is  not inherently or exclusively  a  governmental function,  it is on the contrary, in essence and practice,  of  a private nature  and  interest.

Petitioner's contention that the  Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction because the employees involved are governed by. the  Civil  Service  Law, is likewise untenable.   Our decision in Manila Hotel Employees Association vs.  Manila  Hotel  Company, et al., 73  Phil.,  374,  is already decisive  in favor of the jurisdiction of  the Court, of Industrial Relations over  labor disputes affecting government-owned   or  controlled  corporations.  Commonwealth Act  No.  103  (creating the  Court of . Industrial Relations) does  not exclude from  its  jurisdiction  civil service employees.

It is interesting to note that  in section  11 of Republic Act No.' 875  it is provided that "the terms and  conditions of employment in the  Government, including any political subdivision  or instrumentality thereof,  are  governed  by law and it is declared to be the policy of this Act that employees therein shall not strike for the purpose  of securing changes or modification in their terms and conditions of employment";  and yet it  is also provided that said section  "shall apply only  to  employees employed in governmental functions and not  to those employed in proprietary functions  of  the Government  including but not limited to governmental  corporations."  This  indirectly upholds the jurisdiction of the  Court of Industrial Relations  over the labor dispute between the  petitioner and the, respondent association  which  gave rise to: the strike declared  on  June 17,  1053,  considering that strikes are common  coercive measures falling under and subject to said jurisdiction.

Wherefore, the petition is hereby, dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.:  So ordered.

Bengzon, Monternayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,  J. B. L,., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

* 91 Phil., 203.