The petitioner is a legitimate labor organization duly  registered in the  Department of Labor in accordance with the law of  the Philippines.
 
 The respondent is a business entity duly licensed to  operate and engage  in the business of catering food to   the public.    It has  seventy (70) employees,   seventeen   (17)  of whom are members of   the petitioning labor  organization,  who, not being satisfied with  their conditions as employees   of the respondent,   urged their  organization,   the herein petitioner, Cosmopolitan. Workers Union,  to file   in their names with the Court of Industrial Relations,   on March 26,   1953,  a petition to secure   vacation and  sick leases,   increase  in wages,   payment of the minimum wage as fixed by law and overtime pay for work rendered in excess  of eight hours  and  on Sundays and holidays.
 
 After being  only summoned,   the  respondent   filed  a motion  to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction in that only seventeen   (17)   out  of the seventy (70) employees  of the respondent  filed the  present  petition,  which is less than the number required by Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No.   103,   as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 254 and 599.    Attached,to the motion to dismiss was a written "Joint Manifestation" of the  fifty-three   (53)  employees    who did not   join the petition, Wherein they  stated the following:

"That we are  satisfied with  the   conditions  of employment   in  the  establishment,   the   same  being;  in accordance with law,   and  the privileges and facilities enjoyed by us being   in excess of legal requirements;

"That we are  aware   of a petition filed by a so-called Cosmopolitan Workers'  Union before  the Court of Industrial Relations, docketed there in as Case No.   852-V and naming  the said Panciteria Moderna as party  respondent;

 "That we are not. members of  the  so-called  Cosmopolitan Workers'  Union and  refuse  to be affected and/or involved in the above-mentioned litigation;
 "That   in consequence of  the   immediately preceding paragraph,  we irrevocably and   specifically declare   that we waive  and/or renounce   the  effect  of whatever resolution the  Honorable Court of Industrial Relations may make on the litigation."

The motion to dismiss was denied by  one   of   the Associate Judges of the Court  of Industrial Relations   on the ground that in interpreting  the aforementioned provision of law,   the number required bylaw for   the   court to  acquire   jurisdiction over a case is not  the number   of  the laborers  or employees that may be affected by the final decree  of the court,   whose interests are identical  to   the petitioning employees, even if they did  not join the petition. This ruling was however reversed by the majority of the Judges   of the  Court  of Industrial  Relations when   the same   was submitted  to   the   court  en banc on a motion for reconsideration.   Hence,  this petition for certiorari.

 In dismissing the petition,   the majority  of the members  of  the Court  of Industrial Relations ruled as follows':
 
 "This  is   a case,    tie re fore,   where   seventeen (17) employees presented  a petition for concessions while   their  co-employees numbering fifty-seven   (57) in all have  categorically refused to be involved in the case because  they are  satisfied with  the   conditions of  their employment and   at  the   same time they have announced irrevocably and clearly that they will not avail of any benefits which the Court may grant  in   the premises. If these fifty-seven (57)  employees have  just kept  silent,  perhaps  it may  justifiably be  presumed that they would  be  interested in the   outcome   of the case  and may be considered  involved, therein.    That would be  interpreting very liberally the particular provision of  said section 4 requiring  the involvement of more   than thirty   (30) workers in an industrial dispute before  it maybe  taken  cognizance   of by  this Court.    But   to include  in  counting the workers involved those who have  categorically and emphatically refused to have  anything  to do with  the  case is going   too far/and would  amount   to nullifying, if not changing,  a  clear legislative mandate.    This Court  cannot  change   or suppress a legislative enactment;  it  can only interpret  and  apply it.

"Moreover,   the  decision,   in a way,   overlooks the principle   of majority rule  which we  cannot now discard without doing   violence  to  the whole  philosophy which underlies  oar democratic institutions. Just imagine   allowing:   seventeen  (17) persons  to drag their  fifty-seven   (57)  co-workers into a  dispute which, they did not provoke  and with which they refined  to have anything  to do.  Even  the recently enacted Industrial Peace Act  (R.A.   875)  requires that labor organization may act as  the exclusive representative  of all tie employees in an appropriate  collective bargaining    unit   only if it is  this choice   of the majority  of said employees."

 We entirely agree with this ruling, for we find it to be In  conformity with the provisions of Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No.  103,   as amended which provides:

"Strikes and lockouts. The  Court  shall take cognizance for purposes of prevention,   arbitration, decision,   and settlement,   of  any industrial or agricultural dispute  causing or likely to cause a strike   or lockout,   arising from differences as regards wages,   shares  or   compensation, dismissals, lay-offs,   or  suspensions of employees or laborers, tenants or farm-laborers,   hours of labor,   or conditions of tenancy   or employments,   between employers and employees or laborers and   between landlords and tenants  or farm-laborers provided that the number of  employees,   laborers   or  tenants  or farm-laborers involved exceeds  thirty, and  such industrial or agricultural dispute  is   submitted to   the  Court by the Secretary  of Labor,  or by any or both of the parties  in  the   controversy.     In all  such cases, the Secretary of Labor,  or the party  or parties submitting the dispute,   shall clearly and specifically state in writing the   questions  to be  decided.    Upon the   submission  of such a  controversy, or question by the Secretary of  Labor,   his intervention therein as authorized by law,   shall cease."

 It is   our considered opinion that the aforoquoted provision of law  should be interpreted to  the effect that  the court  could   only acquire   jurisdiction over a petition filed by thirty (30) employees who have some quarrel,  grievance or dispute  against their employer in connection with  their, labor, condition and    that a petition filed by less than thirty  (30) employees   cannot be acted upon or entertained by th3  court.    For,  a  contrary interpretation would give a single employee right  to file  a petition against his employer,   even  against  Idle will  of  Ms  co-workers,   if the result  of   the petition may affect  all of them,  which interpretation,   we believe,   is beyond  the purview of the  afore-quoted provision of law.
 
WHEREFORE,  the petition under consideration is hereby denied,  without any pronouncement with regard to costs.
 
 Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.