U.S.T. PRESS, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On October 1, 1955, Fr. Excelso Garcia was appointed director of the
U.S.T. Press and on the same date he assumed office. One month
thereafter, he received a directive from the Rector of the University
of Santo Tomas prohibiting the U.S.T. Press from accepting outside jobs
and ordering it to confine its printing exclusively to jobs coming from
the University of Santo Tomas and its departments or from the Dominican
fathers. On the same date, a copy of this directive was posted on the
bulletin board of the U.S.T. Press for the information of its employees.

On November 12, 1955, Fr. Garcia wrote a letter to one Servillano
Caliolio, an employee of the U.S.T. Press suggesting that he resign
from his position due to the loss of films in said press for which he
was blamed and for the improper filing of certain records concerning
outside jobs. The intervention of Mr. Eulogio Lerum in his behalf was
not given recognition.

Due to the above directive, it became necessary to reduce the
personnel of the U.S.T. Press and so Fr. Garcia decided to lay off one
from each department. To this effect, Gertrudes Cortez, Eduardo
Mendoza, Serafin Banez and Artemio Juson were served written notices
informing them that 30 days from receipt their services would be
terminated.

When the academic years 1955-1956 was about to close, it was decided
by the Father Rector to dispose of the printing press because (1) there
was no sufficient personnel among the Dominican fathers who could
devote their time to the religious and educational objectives of the
Order and the services of Fr. Garcia were needed elsewhere; (2) there
was no one among the Dominican fathers who has special knowledge of
printing operations; and (3) the Dominican fathers did not wish to
engage in the printing business. But since there was no one who could
offer commensurate price the U.S.T. Press was leased instead to the
Novel Publishing Company which took over the press on June 1, 1956.

On March 24, 1956, Fr. Garcia posted a notice on the bulletin board
that 30 days from said date the press will cease operations. On April
21, 1956, the Novel Publishing Company posted also a notice on the
bulletin board advising everyone that the new management will take over
the operation on June 1, 1956 and that those who are interested in
joining the new management may apply on April 26, 1956. Another notice
was posted advising the employees that upon suggestion of the
University of Santo Tomas the new management is giving preference to
present employees, and to that effect the filing of applications was
extended to May 10, 1956. A portion of the employees filed their
applications, but others did not file any because they were either not
interested or failed to do so upon instruction of the union with which
they were affiliated. As a consequence, those who failed to file their
applications were laid off.

Considering that the separation from the service of Gertrudes
Cortez, Artemio Juson, Eduardo Mendoza, Serafin Banez and Servillano
Caliolio was due to a supposed interference by Fr. Excelso Garcia with
their membership in the union to which they belonged, and the
non-employment by the Novel Publishing Company of those employees who,
of their own volition, did not file applications for employment with
the company was also due to a supposed discrimination on the part of
Fr. Garcia against union members, two cases for unfair labor practice
were filed by the U.S.T. Press unit of the National Labor Union against
the U.S.T. Press belonging to the University of Santo Tomas. These
cases were docketed in the Court of Industrial Relations as Cases Nos.
862-ULP and 977-ULP.

It should be stated, in passing, that five of the employees who were
included as complainants filed separate manifestations to the effect
that their dismissals were not due to union activities but for reasons
stated in the letters they sent to Fr. Excelso Garcia.

On August 27, 1958, the University of Santo Tomas filed a motion to
dismiss alleging, among other grounds, that (a) the U.S.T. Press is
neither a natural nor a juridical person amd hence it cannot be sued as
respondent; and (b) the U.S.T. Press, not being a natural or juridical
person, the proper respondent in the two cases is the University of
Santo Tomas, to which it belongs, but since Republic Act 875 does not
apply to said university, the Court of Industrial Relations has no
jurisdiction over said university for purposes of these two cases.

Upon agreement of both parties, the two cases were jointly tried,
and, on November 29, 1958, the Court of Industrial Relations, thru
Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista, who received the evidence, rendered
decision in favor of the National Labor Union declaring the U.S.T.
Press guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering as a consequence the
reinstatement of those employees allegedly separated due to unfair
labor practice to their former jobs with payment of back wages from the
date of their dismissal to their actual reinstatement.

On December 9, 1958, the U.S.T. Press filed a motion for
reconsideration wherein it reiterated the same grounds it had invoked
in its motion to dismiss filed on August 27, 1958, but this motion was
denied by the court en banc in a split decision. Presiding
Judge Bautista, with whom Judges Villanueva and Martinez concurred,
affirmed the decision of the trial judge insofar as the jurisdiction of
the court over the subject matter is concerned, though the latter two
differed with regard to other portions of the decision. Judges Tabigne
and Bugayong dissented mainly on the question of jurisdiction. They
held the view that Republic Act 875 does not apply to the University of
Santo Tomas, it being an institution operated not for profit, but for
strictly educational purposes.

The U.S.T. Press interposed the present petition for review.

It is an admitted fact that the U.S.T. Press is neither a natural
nor juridical person but is a press mainly operated, administered and
owned by the University of Santo Tomas. Such being the case the U.S.T.
Press has no personality to be a party in these cases in its own right,
the real party in interest being the University of Santo Tomas to which
it belongs. If the real party in interest is this university, then it
logically follows that the Court of Industrial Relations has no
jurisdiction over it insofar as the instant two cases are concerned,
since this Court has already held in a number of cases that Republic
Act 875 does not apply to an institution which is not organized for
profit but for charitable or educational purposes.^[1] Admittedly, the University of Santo Tomas is not one organized for profit, but strictly for educational purposes.

It may be true that the U.S.T. Press used to accept outside printing
jobs, but this work is merely incidental, for its main function is to
do jobs coming from the University of Santo Tomas and its departments
or from the Dominican fathers. Moreover, the record is not clear that
in so accepting outside printing jobs the press realized profits. And
even assuming that it made profits from such work, the fact still
remains that there is no proof that part of such earnings or profits
was ever distributed as dividends to any stockholder, as in fact none
was so distributed because they accrued to the benefit of the
University of Santo Tomas which is a non-profit educational
institution. Indeed, in the recent case of University of Santo Tomas vs. Villanueva, et al., 106 Phil., 439; promulgated October 30, 1959, this Court held:

“* * * University of Santos Tomas is not an industry
organized for profit but an institution of learning devoted exclusively
to the education of the youth. * * * The University declares no
dividend, and the members of the corporation who founded it, as
ordained in its articles of incorporation, receive no material
compensation for the time and sacrifice they render to the University
and its students. * * * It is apparent, therefore, that on the face of
the record the University of Santo Tomas is not a corporation created
for profit but an educational institution and therefore not an
industrial or business organization.”

Wherefore, the decision subject of the present appeal is reversed.
The two charges of unfair labor practice filed against the U.S.T. Press
are hereby dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association vs. Sto. Tomas University Hospital, 95 Phil., 40; San Beda College vs. CIR, et al., 97 Phil., 787; 51 Off. Gaz., [11] 5636; Quezon Institute, et al. vs. Velasco, 97 Phil., 905, 51 Off. Gaz., (12) 6175; Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos, 102 Phil., 1080; University of San Agustin vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 103 Phil., 926; 60 Off. Gaz. (29) 4241; The Elks Club vs. The United laborers & Employees of the Elks Club, 105 Phil., 204; Cebu Chinese High School, et al., vs. Philippine-Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU), et al., L-12015, April 22, 1959. The University of the Philippines, et al., vs. CIR, et al., 107 Phil., 848.