You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2d47?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[ELKS CLUB v. UNITED LABORERS](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2d47?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c2d47}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-9747, Feb 27, 1959 ]

ELKS CLUB v. UNITED LABORERS +

DECISION

105 Phil. 204

[ G. R. No. L-9747, February 27, 1959 ]

THE ELKS CLUB, MANILA LODGE NO. 761, B.P.O.E., PETITIONER, VS. THE UNITED LABORERS & EMPLOYEES OF THE ELKS CLUB, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

This is a petition for a review under Rule 44 and section 6, Republic Act No. 875, of a judgment of the Court of Industrial Relations.

The petitioner Manila  Lodge No. 761,  B.P.O.E., owns the Elks Club that runs  and operates  a dining room (restaurant), kitchen and bodega for the benefit and service of the members of the  Lodge.  Oh 15 September  1953, John F.  Dwyer, the Chairman of the House Committee of the petitioner, wrote  a letter  to the President of the respondent  union advising him that separate  letters had been sent to 14 of its employees,  12 of whom  were members of the union, ending their  services effective 16 September 1953, the Club having decided to  discontinue the operation of the dining room  (restaurant), kitchen and bodega because of "losses continuously suffered."  In each letter a  check  covering  one  month  salary for the period 16 September to 15 October 1953 was enclosed.   The recipients cashed their checks.

On 3 November 1953 the respondent union, in behalf of 12  of its members employed by the petitioner who were separated from its service, filed in the Court of Industrial Relations charges  of unfair labor practice  against the petitioner.  After a preliminary investigation,  on 4 January 1954 the Court issued and caused to be served upon the  petitioner and John  F.  Dwyer, its Chairman of the House Committee, a complaint charging them with unfair labor practice under the provisions of section 4, sub-section (a), paragraphs 1 and  4, Republic Act No. 875, and with violation of paragraph 5  of the working  agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and respondent union on 20 September 1950, which provides

That in laying off of members of the union, the party of the first part (the petitioner) will consult the  president and members of the board of  directors of the second  part (the respondent).

In its answer the petitioner denies that it  committed unfair labor practice against the complaining employees and sets up the  defense that their separation  was  due to continuous losses in the operation of its dining room (restaurant), kitchen and bodega.

The Court referred the case  to an  examiner for hearing. In  the course of  the hearing, the examiner directed the chief  accounts examiner of  the Court  to  examine and report on the financial condition of the petitioner.   The examination  and report were made.   Later  on,  also upon order of the examiner, the same chief  accounts examiner submitted a  supplemental report.  After the parties  had rested their respective case, on 12 August 1955  the Court rendered judgment holding
* * * that the respondents committed acts of unfair labor practice as charged in the complaint.  The respondent Elks  Club, the chairman of the House Committee of Lodge No. 761, or its manager, or representative,  or assigns, are hereby ordered:

1. To cease and desist from interfering, coercing or restraining or in any manner harassing  the members  of the complainant union in the free exercise  of its right under the Act, or to discriminate the members of said union;

2. To  do the following affirmative acts: (a) To reinstate the complainants or the members of the complainant union who were dismissed on September  16, 1953,  with back pay  and  other  such privileges that they  could have acquired were it not for their dismissal,  from the  time of  their  dismissal  to the time of their reinstatement, less what they have received  as separation pay in lieu of notice; (b) To post copies of this decision in the  conspicuous places of the following departments of the Club: (1) Club's executive office, (2) Bulletin  board of  the bowling alley, (3) In the men's room and  (4) In the ladies lounge; and

3. To  report to this Court within  15  days from the time of the  receipt of this decision, and  every  10  days  thereafter for six  months, compliance  of this Decision.
The motion for reconsideration and new trial was denied by the court in banc. Hence  this appeal.

The petitioner contends that the  court below erred in holding that it  incurred  no losses  despite  proof  to  the contrary as shown by its profit and loss statement; that to compel the petitioner to retain the services of the complaining employees despite showing  that  it  is losing is illegal; that  the trial court allowed itself to  be influenced by supposed facts that  have no  materiality or  bearing upon the questions at issue;  that the closing of the  petitioner's  dining room (restaurant), kitchen  and bodega which brought about the separation of the  complaining employees from the service is not an unfair labor practice as defined in  section 4,  Republic Act  No.  875; and the trial  court  erred in  ordering the reinstatement of the complaining  employees.

Although the evidence shows that losses had been incurred by the petitioner in the operation of the  dining room  (restaurant),  kitchen and  bodega,  yet such losses which brought about  the separation of the 14 employees from the service  are not decisive on the question brought to this Court for determination.

The Court of Industrial Relations found that
* *  * the club is not a business  proposition, run for profit; it is created1 for the benefit  and service of the  members  of the Lodge. * * *.
Adhering to the  rule laid down in  U.S.T. Hospital  Employees Association vs. Santo Tomas University Hospital, 95 Phil., 40; San Beda  College vs.  Court of Industrial Relations, 97 Phil., 787; 51 Off. Gaz., 5636; Quezon Institute vs. Velasco and Quezon Institute vs. Parazo, 97 Phil.,  905; 51 Off. Gaz., 6175;  Marcelo  vs. Philippine National  Red Cross, 101 Phil., 544; Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos, 102 Phil., 1080; University of San Agustin vs. Court of Industrial Relations,  103 Phil., 926; 50 Off. Gaz., 20; and YMCA Employees Association  (NATU) vs. Victoriano et al., G. R. No. L-15072, minute resolution of 23 February 1959, this Court holds that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges of unfair labor practice filed against the petitioner.  It should have dismissed them.

The judgment under review is set aside and the charges of unfair  labor practice against the petitioner are dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador  and Endencia, JJ., concur.




D I S S E N T I N G

CONCEPCION, J., 

I dissent for  the reasons  set  forth in my  dissenting opinion in  Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs.  Araos,  supra.

Reyes, J. B. L.,  J. concur.

tags