Accfa vs. Cugco

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-21484November 29, 1969THE AGRICULTURAL CREIT !"# COOPERATI$E %INANCING AMINISTRATION &ACC%A', petitioner, vs.ACC%A SUPER$ISORS( ASSOCIATION, ACC%A )OR*ERS( ASSOCIATION, !"# THE COURT O% INUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.Deogracias E. Lerma and Esmeraldo U. Guloy for petitioner Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration.Office of the Agrarian Counsel, Department of ustice for petitioner Agricultural Credit Administration. C. Espinas and Associates for respendents Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations Offices, et al. !ariano ". #uason for respondent Court of $ndustrial %elations.MA*ALINTAL, J.:These are two separate appeals by certiorari fro the decision dated March !", #$%& '(.R. No. )*!#+,+- and the order dated May !#, #$%+ '(.R. No. )*!&%."- as affired bythe resolutions en &anc, of the Court of /ndustrial Relations, in Cases Nos. &+".*0)P and #&!1*MC, respectively. The parties, e2cept the Confederation of 0nions in (overnent Corporations and 3ffices 'C0(C3-, bein4 practically the sae and the principal issues involved related, only one decision is now rendered in these two cases.The A4ricultural Credit and Cooperative 5inancin4 Adinistration 'ACC5A- was a 4overnent a4ency created under Republic Act No. ,!#, as aended. /ts adinistrative achinery was reor4ani6ed and its nae chan4ed to A4ricultural Credit Adinistration 'ACA- under the )and Refor Code 'Republic Act No. &,++-. 3n the other hand, the ACC5A 7upervisors8 Association 'A7A- and the ACC5A 9or:ers8 Association 'A9A-, hereinafter referred to as the 0nions, are labor or4ani6ations coposed of the supervisors and the ran:*and*file eployees, respectively, in the ACC5A 'now ACA-.G.%. 'o. L()*+,+3n 7epteber +, #$%# a collective bar4ainin4 a4reeent, which was to be effective for a period of one '#- year fro ;uly #, #$%#, was entered into by and between the 0nions and the ACC5A. A few onths thereafter, the 0nions started protestin4 a4ainst alle4ed violations and non*ipleentation of said a4reeent. 5inally, on 3ctober !", #$%! the 0nions declared a stri:e, which was ended when the stri:ers voluntarily returned to wor:on Noveber !%, #$%!.3n 3ctober &., #$%! the 0nions, to4ether with its other union, the Confederation of 0nions in (overnent Corporations and 3ffices 'C0(C3-, filed a coplaint with the Court of /ndustrial Relations a4ainst the ACC5A 'Case No. &+".*0)P- for havin4 alle4edly coitted acts of unfair labor practice, naely< violation of the collective bar4ainin4 a4reeent in order to discoura4e the ebers of the 0nions in the e2ercise of their ri4ht to self*or4ani6ation, discriination a4ainst said ebers in the atter of prootions, and refusal to bar4ain. The ACC5A denied the char4es and interposed as affirative and special defenses lac: of =urisdiction of the C/R over the case, ille4ality of the bar4ainin4 contract, e2piration of said contract and lac: of approval by the office of the President of the frin4e benefits provided for therein. Brushin4 aside the fore4oin4 defenses, the C/R in its decision dated March !", #$%& ordered the ACC5A!. To coply with and ipleent the provision of the collective bar4ainin4 contract e2ecuted on 7epteber +, #$%#, includin4 the payent of P&.... a onth livin4 allowance>&. To bar4ain in 4ood faith and e2peditiously with the herein coplainants.The ACC5A oved to reconsider but was turned down in a resolution dated April !", #$%& of the C/R en &anc. Thereupon it brou4ht this appeal by certiorari.The ACC5A raises the followin4 issues in its petition, to wit if valid, whether or not it has already lapsed> and if not, whether or not its 'sic- frin4e benefits are already enforceable.&. 9hether or not there is a le4al and?or factual basis for the findin4 of the respondent court that the petitioner had coitted acts of unfair labor practice.+. 9hether or not it is within the copetence of the court to enforce the collective bar4ainin4 a4reeent between the petitioner and the respondent unions, the sae havin4 already e2pired.G.%. 'o. L()-./0@urin4 the pendency of the above entioned case '(.R. No. )*!#+,+-, specifically on Au4ust ,, #$%&, the President of the Philippines si4ned into law the A4ricultural )and Refor Code 'Republic Act No. &,++-, which aon4 other thin4s reAuired the reor4ani6ation of the adinistrative achinery of the A4ricultural Credit and Cooperative5inancin4 Adinistration 'ACC5A- and chan4ed its nae to A4ricultural Credit Adinistration 'ACA-. 3n March #1, #$%+ the ACC5A 7upervisors8 Association and the ACC5A 9or:ers8 Association filed a petition for certification election with the Court of /ndustrial Relations 'Case No. #&!1*MC- prayin4 that they be certified as the e2clusive bar4ainin4 a4ents for the supervisors and ran:*and*file eployees, respectively, in the ACA. The trial Court in its order dated March &., #$%+ directed the Mana4er or 3fficer*in*Char4e of the ACA to allow the postin4 of said order Bfor the inforation of all eployees and wor:ers thereof,B and to answer the petition. /n copliance therewith, the ACA, while adittin4 ost of the alle4ations in the petition, denied that the 0nions represented the a=ority of the supervisors and ran:*and*file wor:ers, respectively, in the ACA. /t further alle4ed that the petition was preature, that the ACA was not the proper party to be notified and to answer the petition, and that the eployees and supervisors could not lawfully becoe ebers of the 0nions, nor be represented by the. Cowever, in a =oint anifestation of the 0nions dated May 1, #$%+, with the confority of the ACA Adinistrator and of the A4rarian Counsel in his capacity as such and as counsel for the National )and Refor Council, it was a4reed Bthat the union petitioners in this case represent the a=ority of the eployees in their respective bar4ainin4 unitsB and that only the le4al issues raised would be subitted for the resolution of the trial Court.5indin4 the reainin4 4rounds for ACA8s opposition to the petition to be without erit, the trial Court in its order dated May !#, #$%+ certified Bthe ACC5A 9or:ers8 Association and the ACC5A 7upervisors8 Association as the sole and e2clusive bar4ainin4 representatives of the ran:*and*file eployees and supervisors, respectively, of the A4ricultural Credit Adinistration.B 7aid order was affired by the C/R en &anc in its resolution dated Au4ust !+, #$%+.3n 3ctober !, #$%+ the ACA filed in this Court a petition for certiorari with ur4ent otion to stay the C/R order of May !#, #$%+. /n a resolution dated 3ctober %, #$%+, this Court disissed the petition for Blac: of adeAuate alle4ations,B but the disissal was later reconsidered when the ACA coplied with the foral reAuireent stated in said resolution. As prayed for, this Court ordered the C/R to stay the e2ecution of its order of May !#, #$%+./n this appeal, the ACA in effect challen4es the =urisdiction of the C/R to entertain the petition of the 0nions for certification election on the 4round that it 'ACA- is en4a4ed in 4overnental functions. The 0nions =oin the issue on this sin4le point, contendin4 that the ACA fors proprietary functions.0nder 7ection & of the A4ricultural )and Refor Code the ACA was established, aon4 other 4overnental a4encies,# to e2tend credit and siilar assistance to a4riculture, in pursuance of the policy enunciated in 7ection ! as follows'&- To create a truly viable social and econoic structure in a4riculture conducive to 4reater productivity and hi4her far incoes>'+- To apply all labor laws eAually and without discriination to both industrial anda4ricultural wa4e earners>'"- To provide a ore vi4orous and systeatic land resettleent pro4ra and public land distribution> and'%- To a:e the sall farers ore independent, self*reliant and responsible citi6ens, and a source of 4enuine stren4th in our deocratic society.The ipleentation of the policy thus enunciated, insofar as the role of the ACA therein is concerned, is spelled out in 7ections ##. to ##,, inclusive, of the )and Refor Code. 7ection ##. provides that Bthe adinistrative achinery of the ACC5A shall be reor4ani6ed to enable it to ali4n its activities with the reAuireents and ob=ective of this Code and shall be :nown as the A4ricultural Credit Adinistration.B 0nder 7ection ##! the su of P#".,...,... was appropriated out of national funds to finance the additionalcredit functions of the ACA as a result of the land refor pro4ra laid down in the Code. 7ection #.& 4rants the ACA the privile4e of rediscountin4 with the Central Ban:, the @evelopent Ban: of the Philippines and the Philippine National Ban:. 7ection #." directs the loanin4 activities of the ACA Bto stiulate the developent of farers8 cooperatives,B includin4 those Brelatin4 to the production and ar:etin4 of a4ricultural products and those fored to ana4e and?or own, on a cooperative basis, services and facilities, such as irri4ation and transport systes, established to support production and?or ar:etin4 of a4ricultural products.B 7ection #.% deals with the e2tension by ACA of credit to sall farers in order to stiulate a4ricultural production. 7ections #.1 to ##! lay down certain 4uidelines to be followed in connection with the 4rantin4 of loans, such as security, interest and supervision of credit. 7ections ##& to ##,, inclusive, invest the ACA with certain ri4hts and powers not accorded to non*4overnental entities, thus the latter condenin4 it, it is true, when the forer propose it, but endorsin4it, after it has becoe a fi2ed part of the status Auo, as so beneficial in its effects that no ore of it is needed. 3ur history for the last half*century shows that each iportant 4overnental intervention we have adopted has been called socialistic or counistic by conteporary conservatives, and has later been approved by eAually conservative en who now accept it both for its proved benefits and for the worthy traditions it has coe to represent. Both liberal and conservative supporters of our lar4e*scale business under private ownership advocate or concede the aounts and :inds of 4overnental liitation and aid which they re4ard as necessary to a:e the syste wor: efficiently and huanely. 7ooner or later, they are willin4 to have 4overnent intervene for the purpose of preventin4 the syste fro bein4 too oppressive to the asses of the people, protectin4 it fro its self*destructive errors, and coin4 to its help in other ways when it appears not to be able to ta:e care of itself.B#,At any rate, by #$+&, the 0nited 7tates was reconciled to laisse6(faire havin4 lost its doinance. /n the lan4ua4e of ;ustice ;ac:son in the leadin4 case of 3est because it is the only :ind of 4overnent that our people understand> it is the :ind of 4overnent we have found to be in consonance with our e2perience, with the necessary odification, capable of perittin4 a fair play of social forces and allowin4 the people to conduct the affairs of that 4overnent.B!%3ne of the ost proinent dele4ates, a leadin4 intellectual, forer President Rafael Pala of the 0niversity of the Philippines, stressed as a fundaental principle in the draft of the Constitution the liitation on the ri4ht to property. Ce pointed out that the then prevailin4 view allowed the accuulation of wealth in one faily down to the last reote descendant, resultin4 in a 4rave diseAuilibriu and brin4in4 in its wa:e e2tree isery side by side with conspicuous lu2ury. Ce did invite attention to the few illionaires at one e2tree with the vast asses of 5ilipinos deprived of the necessities of life at the other. Ce as:ed the Convention whether the 5ilipino people could lon4 reain indifferent to such a deplorable situation. 5or hi to spea: of a deocracy under such circustances would be nothin4 but an illusion. Ce would thus ephasi6e the ur4ent need to reedy the 4rave social in=ustice that had produced such widespread ipoverishent, thus reco4ni6in4 the vital role of 4overnent in this sphere.!1Another dele4ate, Toas Confesor of /loilo, was Auite ephatic in his assertion for the need of a social =ustice provision which is a departure fro the laisse6(faire principle. Thus< BTa:e the case of the tenancy syste in the Philippines. Hou have a tenant. There are hundreds of thousands of tenants wor:in4 day in and day out, cultivatin4 the fields oftheir landlords. Ce puts all his tie, all his ener4y, the labor and the assistance of his wife and children, in cultivatin4 a piece of 4round for his landlord but when the tie coes for the partition of the products of his toil what happensK /f he produces !" cavanes of rice, he 4ets only perhaps five and the twenty 4oes to the landlord. Now can he 4o to courtK Cas he a chance to 4o to court in order to secure his =ust share of the products of his toilK No. 0nder our present re4ie of law, under our present re4ie of =ustice, you do not 4ive that to the poor tenant. (entleen, you 4o to the Ca4ayan Galley and see the condition under which those poor farers are bein4 e2ploited day in and day out. Can they 4o to court under our present re4ie of =ustice, of liberty, or deocracyK The other day, wor:en were shot by the police =ust because they wanted to increase or they desired that their wa4es be increased fro thirty centavos a day to forty or fifty centavos. /s it necessary to spill huan blood =ust to secure an increase of ten centavos in the daily wa4es of an ordinary laborerK And yet under our present re4ie of social =ustice, liberty and deocracy, these thin4s are happenin4> these thin4s,/ say, are happenin4. Are those people 4ettin4 any =usticeK No. They cannot 4et =ustice now fro our courts. 5or this reason, / say it is necessary that we insert 8social =ustice8 here and that social =ustice ust be established by law. Proper le4al provisions, proper le4al facilities ust be provided in order that there be a re4ie not of =ustice alone, because we have that now and we are seein4 the oppression arisin4 fro such a re4ie. ConseAuently, we ust ephasi6e the ter 8social =ustice8.B!,@ele4ate Gentenilla of Pan4asinan reflected the attitude of the Convention as to why laisse6(faire was no lon4er acceptable. After spea:in4 of ties havin4 chan4ed, he proceeded< B7ince then new probles have arisen. The spiritual ission of 4overnent has descended to the level of the aterial. Then its function was priarily to soothe the achin4 spirit. Now, it appears, it ust also appease hun4er. Now that we ay read history bac:wards, we :now for instance, that the old theory of 8laisse6(faire8 has de4enerated into 8bi4 business affairs8 which are 4radually devourin4 the ri4hts of the people D the sae ri4hts intended to be 4uarded and protected by the syste of constitutional 4uaranties. 3h, if the 5athers were now alive to see the chan4es that the centuries have wrou4ht in our lifeL They i4ht conteplate the sad spectacle of or4ani6ed e2ploitation 4reedily devourin4 the previous ri4hts of the individual. They i4ht also behold the 4radual disinte4ration of society, the fast disappearance of the bour4eois D the iddle class, the bac:bone of the nation D and the conseAuent driftin4of the classes toward the opposite e2trees D the very rich and the very poor.B!$7hortly after the establishent of the Coonwealth, the then ;ustice ;ose P. )aurel, hiself one of the foreost dele4ates of the Constitutional Convention, in a concurrin4 opinion, later Auoted with approval in the leadin4 case of Antamo5 Goldfields !ining Co.v. Court of $ndustrial %elations,&. decided in #$+., e2plained clearly the need for the repudiation of the laisse6(faire doctrine. Thus< B/t should be observed at the outset that our Constitution was adopted in the idst of sur4in4 unrest and dissatisfaction resultin4 fro econoic and social distress which was threatenin4 the stability of 4overnents the world over. Alive to the social and econoic forces at wor:, the fraers of our Constitution boldly et the probles and difficulties which faced the and endeavored to crystalli6e, with ore or less fidelity, the political, social and econoic propositions of their a4e, and this they did, with the consciousness that the political and philosophical aphoris of their 4eneration will, in the lan4ua4e of a 4reat =urist, 8be doubted by the ne2t and perhaps entirely discarded by the third.8 . . . Ebodyin4 the spirit of the present epoch, 4eneral provisions were inserted in the Constitution which are intended to brin4 about the needed social and econoic eAuilibriu between coponent eleents of society throu4h the application of what ay be tered as the =ustitia communis advocated by (rotius and )eibnits any years a4o to be secured throu4h thecounterbalancin4 of econoic and social forces and opportunities which should be re4ulated, if not controlled, by the 7tate or placed, as it were, in custodia societatis. 8The prootion of social =ustice to insure the well*bein4 and econoic security of all the people8 was thus inserted as vital principle in our Constitution. ... .B

/n the course of such concurrin4 opinion and after notin4 the chan4es that have ta:en place stressin4 that the policy of laisse6(faire had indeed 4iven way to the assuption by the 4overnent of the ri4ht to intervene althou4h Aualified by the phrase Bto soe e2tentB, he ade clear that the doctrine in 1eople v. 1omar no lon4er retain, Bits virtuality as a livin4 principle.B&!&. /t ust be ade clear that the ob=ection to the Bconstituent*inistrantB classification of 4overnental functions is not to its forulation as such. 5ro the standpoint of law as lo4ic, it is not without erit. /t has neatness and syetry. There are hardly any loose ends. /t has the virtue of clarity. /t ay be said in its favor li:ewise that it reflects all*too*faithfully the laisse6(faire notion that 4overnent cannot e2tend its operation outside the aintenance of peace and order, protection a4ainst e2ternal security, and the adinistration of =ustice, with private ri4hts, especially so in the case of property, bein4 safe4uarded and a hint that the 4eneral welfare is not to be entirely i4nored./t ust not be lost si4ht of thou4h that lo4ic and =ural syetry while undoubtedly desirable are not the prie consideration. This is especially so in the field of public law. 9hat was said by Coles, alost nine decades a4o, carry 4reater conviction now. BThe life of the law has not been lo4ic> it has been e2perience. The felt necessities of the tie,the prevalent oral and political theories, intuitions of public policy avowed or unconscious, even the pre=udices which =ud4es share with their fellow*en, have had a 4ood deal ore to do than the syllo4is in deterinin4 the rules by which en should be 4overned.B&& Then too, there was the warnin4 of (eny cited by Cardo6o that undue stress or lo4ic ay result in confinin4 the entire syste of positive law, Bwithin a liited nuber of lo4ical cate4ories, predeterined in essence, iovable in basis, 4overned by infle2ible do4as,B thus renderin4 it incapable of respondin4 to the ever varied and chan4in4 e2i4encies of life.&+,/t is cause enou4h for concern if the ob=ection to the Bacani decision were to be preised on the score alone that perhaps there was fidelity to the reAuireents of lo4ic and =ural syetry carried to e2cess. 9hat appears to e uch ore deplorable is thatit did fail to reco4ni6e that there was a repudiation of the laisse6(faire concept in the Constitution. As was set forth in the precedin4 pa4es, the Constitution is distin4uished precisely by a contrary philosophy. The re4ie of liberty if provided for, with the reali6ation that under the then prevalent social and econoic conditions, it ay be attained only throu4h a 4overnent with its sphere of activity ran4in4 far and wide, not e2cludin4 atters hitherto left to the operation of free enterprise. As ri4htfully stressed in our decision today in line with what was earlier e2pressed by ;ustice )aurel, the 4overnent that we have established has as a fundaental principle the prootion of social =ustice.&" The sae =urist 4ave it a coprehensive and endurin4 definition as the Bprootion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the 4overnent of easures calculated to insure econoic stability of all the coponent eleents of society, throu4h the aintenance of a proper econoic and social eAuilibriu in the interrelations of the ebers of the counity, constitutionally, throu4h the adoption of easures le4ally =ustifiable, or e2tra*constitutionally, throu4h the e2ercise of powers underlyin4 the e2istence of all 4overnents in the tie honored principle of salus populi estsuprema le4.B&%There is thus fro the sae distin4uished pen, this tie writin4 for the Court, a reiteration of the view of thelaisse6(faire doctrine bein4 repu4nant to the fundaental law. /t ust be added thou4h that the reference to e2tra*constitutional easures bein4 allowable ust be understood in the sense that there is no infrin4eent of specific constitutional 4uarantees. 3therwise, the =udiciary will be hard put to sustain their validityif challen4ed in an appropriate le4al proceedin4.The re4ie of liberty conteplated in the Constitution with social =ustice as a fundaental principle to reinforce the pled4e in the preable of prootin4 the 4eneral welfare reflects traditional concepts of a deocratic policy infused with an awareness of the vital and pressin4 need for the 4overnent to assue a uch ore active and vi4orous role in the conduct of public affairs. The fraers of our fundaental law were as one in their stron4ly*held belief that thereby the 4rave and serious infirity then confrontin4 our body*politic, on the whole still with us now, of 4reat ineAuality of wealth and ass poverty, with the 4reat bul: of our people ill*clad, ill*housed, ill*fed, could be reedied. Nothin4 else than counal effort, assive in e2tent and earnestly en4a4ed in, would suffice.To paraphrase )as:i, with the necessary odification in line with such worthy constitutional ends, we loo: upon the state as an or4ani6ation to proote the happiness of individuals, its authority as a power bound by subordination to that purpose, liberty while to be viewed ne4atively as absence of restraint ipressed with a positive aspect as well to assure individual self*fulfillent in the attainent of which 4reater responsibility is thrust on 4overnent> and ri4hts as boundary ar:s definin4 areas outside its doain.&1 5ro which it would follow as )as:i so aptly stated that it is the individual8s Bhappiness and not its well*bein4 Ithat isJ the criterion by which its behavior IisJ to be =ud4ed. Cis interests, and not its power, set the liits to the authority it IisJ entitled to e2ercise.B&, 9e have under such a test enlar4ed its field of copetence. +. 9ith the decision reached by us today, the 4overnent is freed fro the copulsion e2erted by the Bacani doctrine of the Bconstituent*inistrantB test as a criterion for the type of activity in which it ay en4a4e. /ts constrictin4 effect is consi4ned to oblivion. No doubts or is4ivin4s need assail us that 4overnental efforts to proote the public weal, whether throu4h re4ulatory le4islation of vast scope and aplitude or throu4h the underta:in4 of business activities, would have to face a searchin4 and ri4orous scrutiny. /t is clear that their le4itiacy cannot be challen4ed on the 4round alone of their bein4 offensive to the iplications of the laisse6(faire concept. 0nless there be a repu4nancy then to the liitations e2pressly set forth in the Constitution to protect individual ri4hts, the 4overnent en=oys a uch wider latitude of action as to the eans it chooses to cope with 4rave social and econoic probles that ur4ently press for solution. 5or e, at least, that is to anifest deference to the philosophy of our fundaental law. Cence y full concurrence, as announced at the outset.". The opinion of ;ustice Ma:alintal contains this footnote< B/t ust be stated, however, that we do not here decide the Auestion D not at issue in this case D of whether or not a labor or4ani6ation coposed eployees dischar4in4 4overnental functions, which is allowed under the le4al provision =ust Auoted, provided such or4ani6ation does not ipose the obli4ation to stri:e or to =oin in stri:e, ay petition for a certification election and copel the eployer to bar4ain collectively with it for purposes other than to secure chan4es or conditions in the ters and conditions of eployent.B9ith such an affiration as to the scope of our decision there bein4 no holdin4 on the ve2in4 Auestion of the effects on the ri4hts of labor in view of the conclusion reached that the function en4a4ed in is 4overnental in character, / a in full a4reeent. The answer to such a vital Auery ust await another day.%oo,"o,e.# )and Authority, )and Ban:, A4ricultural Productivity Coission> 3ffice of the A4rarian Counsel.! The )and Refor Pro=ect Adinistration is the or4ani6ation throu4h which the field operations of eber a4encies 'of which the ACA is one- shall be underta:en by their respective personnel under a unified adinistration. '7ection ! of Article #, E2ecutive 3rder No. 1"-& 7ection 1$ '@- of the Revised Adinistrative Code provides in part< BThe @epartent Cead, upon the recoendation of the Chief of bureaus or office concerned, shall appoint all subordinate officers and eployees whose appointent is not e2pressly vested by law in the President of the Philippines. . . ..B+ Bacani vs. National Coconut Corporation, (.R. No. )*$%"1, Nov. !$, #$"%, "& 3.(. p. !,..." Malcol, The (overnent of the Philippines, pp. #$*!.> Bacani vs. National Coconut Corporation, supra.% /t ust be stated, however, that we do not here decide the Auestion D not at issue in this case D of whether or not a labor or4ani6ation coposed of eployees dischar4in4 4overnental functions, which is allowed under the le4al provision =ust Auoted provided such or4ani6ation does not ipose the obli4ation to stri:e or to =oin in stri:e, ay petition for a certification election and copel the eployer to bar4ain collectively with it for purposes other than to secure chan4esor odifications in the ters and conditions of their eployent. 9ithal, it ay not be aiss to observe, albeit obiter, that the ri4ht to or4ani6e thus allowed would be eanin4less unless there is a correlative ri4ht on the part of the or4ani6ation to be reco4ni6ed as the proper representative of the eployees and to bar4ain in their behalf in relation to atters outside the liitations iposed by the statute, such as those provided for in 7ection !, 'b- of Republic Act No. !!%.,concernin4 coplaints and 4rievances of the eployees.1 Reenacted in 7ec. !, 'c- of the Civil 7ervice Act of #$"$, R.A. No. !!%..ACCFA v CUGCO G.R. No. L-21484. November 29, 1969.;. Ma:alintalCertiorari5acts