THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LA LOMA CATHOLIC CEMETERY, PETITIONER; VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, AND THE LA LOMA CATHOLIC CEMETERY FREE WORKERS. (FFW), RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 44 of the
Rules of Court from a resolution of the Court of Industrial
Relations dated December 11, 1957, affirming an order
of June 28, 1957.

It appears, in the language of said order of June 28,
1957, that:

“On November 21, 1956, the La Loma Catholic Cemetery Free
Workers (FPW), hereinafter referred to as petitioner union, filed
with this Court a petition praying that it be certified as the sole
and exclusive bargaining representative for all the employees and
laborers in the La Loma Catholic Cemetery, hereinafter referred
to as the management, under Republic Act No. 875. Acting upon
the said petition, the Court issued an order dated November 23,
1956, requiring the management to file and serve its answer to the
petition within five (5) days after receipt of a copy thereof. The
superintendent of the management, through counsel, instead of
filing its answer, filed a motion dated December 18, 1956, praying
this Court to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the
grounds (a) that Republic Act No. 875 does not apply to the La
Loma Catholic Cemetery, being a religious temporality; (b) that
the La Loma Catholic Cemetery is a non-profit enterprise, and
not an industry or occupation, and its employees and/or laborers
not being industrial employees and/or laborers. This Court, in
an order dated January 21, 1957, deferred its determination on the
said motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 3, Rule 8 of the Rules
of Court, and required the management to file its answer to the
petition.

“On January 30, 1957, management filed its answer alleging
among others, as special defense, that the La Loma Catholic
Cemetery is not an industrial, commercial, business or profit-making
enterprise, but a religious temporality of the Roman Catholic Church
which carries purely religious activities, like the burial of the
dead; and that the La Loma Catholic Cemetery is not subject to
the obligations of an employer under Republic Act No. 875, and
prayed that the petition be dismissed.”

After appropriate proceedings, Hon. Jose S. Bautista,
Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations,
issued the aforementioned order of June 28, 1957, holding
that Republic Act No. 875 applies to the La Loma Catholic
Cemetery, that the same is an employer within the purview
of Section 2 (c) of said Act and that said cemetery is
operated “for profit or for the acquisition of wealth”,
and denying the motion to dismiss and certifying the La
Loma Catholic Cemetery Free Workers (FFW) as the
sole and exclusive representative for collective bargaining
purposes of all the employees and workers of the La Loma
Catholic Cemetery, with the exception of the superintendent

and the assistant superintendent thereof, A reconsideration of said order having been denied by the Court sitting
en banc, in a resolution dated December 11, 1957, the
superintendent of the cemetery interposed the present
appeal by certiorari.

The main facts are set forth in the aforementioned
order of June 28, 1957, in the following language:

“The
evidence presented by the La Loma Catholic Cemetery Free Workers (FFW)
tends to show that it is a legitimate labor organization with
Registration Certificate No. 1869-IP (Exhibit ‘A’) having 21 members
(Exhibit C) employed by the La Loma Catholic Cemetery; that the 21
members of petitioner are employees (as members of the office
personnel) and workers (as grave diggers and ground workers) in the La
Loma Catholic Cemetery out of the total number of 25 employees and
workers thereof; that as claimed by petitioner the La Loma Catholic
Cemetery should bo the appropriate bargaining unit; that no other union
exists therein except petitioner; that no certification election was
ever held during the last twelve months next preceding this present
petition; and that petitioner has been preponderantly designated by the
majority of the employees and workers thereof as their sole and
exclusive bargaining representative in said unit. Under such
circumstances, Mr. Loreto Sakdalan who testified in court for
petitioner and who claimed that he is a member and president of
petitioner union, sent a letter dated August 10, 1956 (Exhibit ‘B’)
with the proposals to Mr. Vicente Hernandez, the superintendent of the
management (La Loma Catholic Cemetery), informing him, among others, of
the existence of the Union, the Free Worker Organizing Committee (FFW),
Local 7 (t.s.n. pp. 9 & 10, hearing of April 1, 1957). But those
proposals appeared not to have been accepted by the management.

“On the other hand, the evidence of the management tends to show that
the La Loma Catholic Cemetery is not incorporated, but a part,
instrumentality or possession of the corporation sole, the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila; that the corporation sole is engaged in
the sale and rentals of lots within the La Loma Catholic Cemetery for
the burial of the dead. The management also collected proceeds from the
rentals of niches for every five years and the registration of dead
bodies. These proceeds went to the funds of corporation sole, the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila. The salaries and wages of the employees
and laborer and the expenses for the maintenance and improvements of
the cemetery came from these funds. For religious activities or
obligations the management, through the Chaplain, required the ground
and office personnel during Sundays and religious holidays to hear mass
said by the Chaplian; that when the cemetery was opened it was blessed
and sanctified; that the management also bury dead indigents free of
charge; and that the properties (cemetery lots) are exempt from the
payment of taxes. It also appears from the testimony of the
superintendent, Mr. Vicente Hernandez, that there are around twenty
(20) members of petitioner whom he supervises, although there is one
(1) non-union member, so that all in all there are only twenty-one (
(21) workers under his supervision. There are also two (2) ordinary
employees and an assistant superintendent who are not members of the
petitioner union; that there is no other union existing in the
management except petitioner. The management opposed the present
petition because it would not want to deal with people outside but
directly with its employees and workers; and that it would not want to
recognize the union organized by the petitioner’s members in this case
(t.s.n., p. 30, hearing of June 7, 1957). But the management directly
granted benefits to its employees and workers on September 16, 1956
(Exhibits ‘I’ and ‘I-A’). The workers are assigned to dig graves and
cover them, do the cleaning of the herbs and leaves. Even on Sundays
and holidays the diggers work.

“Considering all the
evidences, both oral and documentary, presented by both parties, there
is no doubt that petitioner union has the majority members employed in
the establishment (La Loma Catholic Cemetery), taking into account that
petitioner has 21 members out of the total number of 24 employees and
workers working in the establishment, excluding one (1) superintendent;
and one (1) assistant superintendent; there was no dispute that an
employer-employee relationship between the management and the members
of petitioner union; no other union exists in the establishment except
petitioner, and that petitioner has been designated for the purpose of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees and laborers in
the establishment; and that petitioner is a legitimate labor
organization with Registration Certificate No. 1869-IP (Exhibit ‘A’)”.

The issue in this case is whether or not the La Loma Cemetery is
operated for profit and is subject to the provisions of Republic Act
No. 875.

Appellant relies upon our decision in Boy Scouts of
the Philippines vs. Araos, 102 Phil.,1080 January 30, 1958) in support
of his contention that Republic Act No. 875 is inapplicable to the La
Loma Catholic Cemetery and, hence, the Court of Industrial Relations
had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for by the La Loma
Catholic Cementary Free Workers (FFW), said cemetery being allegedly a
non-profit religious temporality of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Manila. Inasmuch, however, as this theory is predicated upon the
premise that the cemetery is not operated for profit, contrary to the
finding made in the order of June 28, 1957, the case hinges on the
validity of said finding. The same reads:

* * * according to the facts disclosed in this case, * * * the La Loma
Catholic Cemetery has its investment, the cemetery lots, opening or
producing of graves which is characterized by religious blessings and
sanctification, collecting proceeds from the sales of lots, collecting
rentals from the niches and charging fees from the registration of dead
bodies—all for profit or for the acquisition of wealth.”

Upon review of the record we find therein no substantial evidence, in
support of the foregoing conclusion. To begin with the fact that income
is derived from the sale of lots and lease of niches for burial
purposes does not necessarily make the La Loma Catholic Cemetery a
profit-making organization. Thus, in Jesus Sacred Heart College vs. Collector of Internal, Revenue, 95 Phil., 16 (May 20, 1954), we held:

“At the outset, we note that Appellant (Collector of Internal Revenue)
has not even tried to demonstrate either ‘that the fees charged are
very considerable’ or that ‘the amount of fees charged indicates that
it is commercial.’ Neither has he shown the presence of the purpose to
make a profit over and above the costs of instruction.’ At any rate,
this standard cannot be applied in the interpretation of the legal
provision under consideration, for the following reasons, namely:

1. Section 27 (e) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by
Rep. Act. No. 82 (Section 5), exempts from taxation the ‘net income of
corporations’ organized and operated exclusively for * * * educational
purposes * * * no part of the net income of
which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual.’
and it is conceded that plaintiff corporation belongs to this class. To
hold that an educational institution is subject to income tax whenever
it so administered as to reasonably assure that it will not incur in
deficit, is to nullify and defeat the aforementioned exemption. Indeed,
the effect, in general, of the interpretation advocated by appellant
would be to deny the exemption whenever there is a net income, contrary
to the tenor of said section 27 (e) which positively exempts from
taxation those corporations or associations which, otherwise, would be
subject thereto, because of the existence of said net income.

Needless to say, every responsible organization must be so run as to,
at least, insure its existence, by operating within the limits of its
own resources, especially its regular income. In other words, it should
always strive, whenever possible, to have a surplus. Upon the other
hand, appellant’s pretense would limit the benefits of the exemption,
under said section 27(e), to institutions which do not hope, or
propose, to have such surplus. Under this view, the exemption would
apply only to schools which are on the verge of bankruptcy; for—unlike
the United States, where a substantial number of institutions of
learning are dependent upon voluntary contributions and still enjoy
economic stability, such as Harvard, the trust fund of which has been
steadily increasing with the years —there are, and there have always
been very few educational enterprises in the Philippines which are
supported by donations, and those organizations usually have a very
precarious existence. The final result of appellant’s contention, if
adopted, would be to discourage the establishment of colleges in the
Philippines, which is precisely the opposite of the objective
consistently sought by our laws.”

Similarly in American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101
Phil, 386 (April 30, 1957), we declared that the circumstance that the
American Bible Society sold and distributed bibles and other religious
pamphlets at price somewhat exceeding the actual cost thereof, does not
warrant the conclusion that said organization “was engaged in the
business or occupation of selling said “merchandise, for profit.” To
the same effect is Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu, L-12791 (May 31, 1962).

Secondly,
there is no evidence that, after deducting the expenses incurred for
the operation and maintenance of the cemetery the same has derived any
monetary profits therefrom.

Thirdly, petitioner herein alleged inter alia,
in his answer in the lower court, that the La Loma Catholic Cemetery”
is a religious temporality maintained and administered by the
corporation sole, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila;” and, that
as such religious temporality, it is maintained principally and
essentially to carry out a purely religious objective—the burial of the
dead in blessed and sanctified grounds, according to the rights,
customs and requirements of the Catholic religion;” that it “is not an
industrial, commercial, business or profit making enterprise, and
whatever income is derived from the operation of the cemetery does not
inure to the benefit of private individuals, but is dedicated to the
maintenance and improvement of the cemetery”; and that, “because of its
religious character,” it “is exempt from the payment of realty taxes,”
pursuant to Section 22(3), Article VI of our Constitution. Respondent
union has neither controverted these allegations nor introduced
evidence to rebut petitioner’s evidence in support thereof. Indeed,
petitioner testified, without contradiction, that the dead are buried
in the aforementioned cemetery according to the rites of the Roman
Catholic Church; that a Catholic chaplain is permanently assigned to
said cemetery; that there is therein a Catholic chapel, where the dead
are blessed before burial; that religious obligations are imposed upon
the laborers and workers in the cemetery, such as the duty to hear mass
on Sundays and other holidays of obligations; and that no fees are
charged for the burial of those who were indigent in life.

Being a purely religious temporality and a non-profit enterprise, the
La Loma Catholic Cemetery falls squarely within the purview of Boys
Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos (supra), in which it was
held that employees and laborers in non-profit organizations are not
covered by the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act and that the
Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction to entertain
petitions of labor unions or organizations for certification as the
exclusive bargaining representatives of said employees and laborers.
Although the writer of this opinion has dissented from the majority
view in the case of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, the doctrine
therein laid down must be adhered to in the case at bar and in
subsequent cases, as long as it is not reversed or modified by this
Court. Instead of doing this, the latter has reiterated said doctrine
in University of San Agustin vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 103 Phil., 926; La Consolacion College vs. CIR, 107 Phil. 636; University of the Philippines vs. CIR, 107 Phil., 848; GSIS Employees Association, et al. vs. Hon. Alvendia, 108 Phil., 505; Roman Catholic Archibishop vs. Social Security System, 110 Phil., 616; Dept. of Public Services Labor Union vs. CIR, 110 Phil., 927; and Santos vs. CIR, L-17196 (December 28, 1961).

WHEREFORE, the resolution and the order appealed from are reversed and
this case is hereby dismissed, without costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J. Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur