G.R. No. L-7649. October 29, 1955
SAN BEDA COLLEGE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OP INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND NATIONAL LABOR UNION, RESPONDENTS.
PADILLA, J.:
members working with the San Beda College made a demand upon the latter for
increase of wages and other concessions. As the management of San Beda College
failed to grant the demands, on 20 January 1953 a petition was filed with the
Court of Industrial Relations praying that the demands be granted effective 16
December 1952 (Annex A). On 24 January 1953 the respondent San Beda College
moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that 30 out of a total of
about 45 or 46 members of the petitioner union in the court below withdrew their
membership from it, thereby reducing the number of members of the petitioner
union to less than 30 (Annex B). On 1 August 1953 this motion was denied for the
reason that some of the signers of withdrawal from the union membership (Exhibit
1) signed it in the afternoon of 20 January 1953, whereas this petition was
filed on that date at 9:15 a.m (Annex C), and because the Court of Industrial
Relations cannot be deprived of jurisdiction once attached by the withdrawal or
severance of union members from the petitioning union. On 10 August 1953 a
motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent upon the ground that the
subject matter of the petition is neither an industrial nor agricultural dispute
and the number of employees involved did not exceed thirty (Annex F). On 28
September 1953 the respondent San Beda College moved for a rehearing on the
motion to dismiss and at the same time prayed for leave to amend the motion by
setting up an additional ground, to wit: that the unsatisfied demands submitted
or brought to court by the petitioning union do not constitute an industrial or
agricultural dispute, and hence not within the purview of section 4,
Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 254 and 559
(Annex D). On 5 October 1953 Associate Judge V. Jimenez Yanson denied the motion
for rehearing, because the ground of the motion to dismiss had been passed upon
and denied on 1 August 1953 and the denial was affirmed by the Court in
banc on 17 September 1953. As to the second ground, as the record was bare
of any ewdence to show the nature of the business of the respondent San Beda
College, the Court was of the opinion that in the interest of justice it was
necessary that it be given an opportunity to submit such evidence as it may deem
necessary to support and prove its claim, and for that reason the Court set the
hearing of the case on 31 October 1953 at 9:00 a.m. (Annex E). On 12 February
1954 the motion for rehearing on the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction was denied and the Court set the case for hearing on its merits
(Annex H). On 20 February 1954 a motion for reconsideration was filed upon the
same grounds as those already alleged (Annex I) and on 9 March 1954 the Court
en banc denied the motion (Annex J). The San Beda College brought the
case to us by a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking the reversal and
setting aside of the orders of 1 August 1953, 12 February and 9 March 1954
If the question of jurisdiction were not the main ground for this petition
for review by certiorari, it would be premature because it seeks to have a
review of an interlocutory order. But as it would be useless and futile to go
ahead with the proceedings if the court below had no jurisdiction this petition
was given due course.
The respondent labor union in this case for certiorari denies the allegations
in paragraphs 2, 8 and 14 and admits those of the other paragraphs of the
petition. As to the allegations of the petition in paragraphs 2 and 8, the labor
union avers that the petitioner is engaged in the business of educating boys and
men for which it charges a fee, and it is also engaged in the business of giving
board and lodging to boys and men for which it also charges a fee; and further
states that because of these operations it made considerable profits. As to
those in paragraph 14 of the petition, the respondent labor union avers that the
order and resolution appealed from are in accordance with law, it being a fact
that the petitioner is engaged in industrial pursuit and that by reason thereof
it has an industrial dispute with its employees, which comes under the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.
The denial of the first ground of the motion to dismiss is correct, because
at the time of the filing of the petition in the court below, there were more
than 30 members of the petitioning union.[1] The evidence shows that the withdrawal of
the members was made in the afternoon of 20 January 1953, or subsequent to the
filing of the petition. In its order of 12 February 1954 (Annex H), the Court of
Industrial Relations says:
The evidence of the respondent College in support of its motion to dismiss on
this new ground, tends to show that the San Beda College is an educational
institution founded by the Benedictine Order in the Philippines for the sole
purpose of which is the education of young men. This claim is supported by
respondent’s exhibits “A,” “B” and “C.” As an educational institution, it is
devoted to educational teaching and preparation of young men to prepare them for
life and for better citizenship. It is not founded and conducted for gaining
profits. It is not an industrial pursuit unlike private business devoted solely
to the realization of profits for its financial investment. It is also shown
that the Benedictine Order that conducts the respondent institution does not
derive any compensation or remuneration for their services because the rules and
laws of the religious order do not allow their members to profit from the fruits
of their industry or effort. This is shown in exhibits “A” and “C.”The respondent maintains a school known as the San Beda College; and, in
addition to this school, the order maintains a dormitory wherein students or
pupils are allowed to board and lodge subject to whatever rules and regulations
the religious order prescribes for the boarders. In the conduct of this college
and its dormitory, respondent does not realize much profit if it ever does. This
is shown in exhibits “D” to “O”—respondent, inclusive. The college proper and
the dormitory employ several laborers performing odd jobs assigned to them by
the institution, like cleaning school premises, etc.On the other hand, the evidence of the petitioner tends to show that the
several employees and/or laborers affiliated with the National Labor Union whose
names appear in exhibits “B,” “B-1,” “B-2,” “B-3,” “B-4,” “B-5,” and “B-6” have
been employed and/or presently employed by the respondent religious college in
various categories as janitors, etc. and performed other odd jobs required of
them by the institution. (Order of 12 February 1954, Exhibit
H.)
On the second ground of the motion to dismiss, in U. S. T. Hospital Employees
Association vs. Sto. Tomas University Hospital, G. R. No. L-6988, 24 May 1954,
this Court held:
* * * No existe alegacion ni en la solicitud presentada en la causa No.
790-V, ni en el presente recurso, ni existen pruebas de que el Hospital de la
Universidad de Sto. Tomas se haya establecido con el proposito exclusivo de
marginar ganancias y repartir dividendos; por tanto, no pueden ser considerados
como “industrial employment” los cuentos ocupados por los miembros de la
recurrente. Si no es “industrial employment”, tampoco debe considerarse
“industrial dispute” la controversia entre el hospital y los miembros de la
recurrente. La reclamacion no esta, por tanto, bajo la jurisdiccion del Tribunal
Industrial como no lo esta la demanda de ios que trabajan en el servicio
domestico.
The operation and maintenance of the school by the herein petitioner not
being for profit or for the purpose or gain, people working in said college
cannot be deemed to be industrial employees.[2] Any controversy or dispute they may have
with the management of the school in connection with or arising out of their
employment does not come within the purview of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as
amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 254 and 559.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The orders of 1 August
1953, 12 February and 9 March 1954 are set aside and the petition of the
National Labor Union is dismissed, without costs.
Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and
Reyes, J.B.B., JJ., concur.
[1] Manila Hotel Employees Association
vs. Manila Hotel Co., 73 Phil. 374, 389; Mortera vs. Court of
Industrial Relations, 45 Off. Gaz. 1715, 1718; Pepsicola, Inc. vs.
National Labor Union, 46 Off. Gaz. Supp. No. 1, pp. 130, 134-135; San Miguel
Brewery vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. L-634, 28 April
1952; Luzon Brokerage Co. vs. Luzon Labor Union, 48 Off. Gaz. 3883,
3887; La Campana Coffee Factory, Inc. vs. Kaisahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa
La Campana Coffee Factory, 49 Off. Gaz. 2300, 2304; PLASLU vs. Court of
Industrial Relations, 49 Off. Gaz. 3859, 3863; Standard Vacuum Oil Co.
vs. Orson, G. R. No. L-7540, 25 May 1955.
[2] Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No.
559 amending section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended by Commonwealth
Act No. 254; section 22 of Republic Act No. 772.