EN
BANC
UNIVERSITY
OF SAN
AGUSTIN,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. L-12222
May
28,
1958
-versus-
COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ET AL.,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
BAUTISTA
ANGELO, J :
This is a Petition for
Review of an Order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated January
2,
1957 and its Resolution dated March 5, 1957 declaring that it has
jurisdiction
over the controversy and ordering that it be referred to the
Prosecution
Division of said Court in order that the preliminary investigation
required
by law may be conducted.
The Petition stems
from a Complaint for unfair labor practice filed by the Philippine
Association
of College and University Professors against the University of San
Agustin
before the Industrial Court. Upon being required to answer, respondent
denied the charge of unfair labor practice and at the same time
disputed
the jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and over the subject
matter,
Trial was held before a hearing examiner without prejudice to deciding
the legal questions raised by respondent, and in the course of the
trial,
respondent raised an additional legal point, to wit: that the court
could
not go on with the trial because of lack of previous preliminary
investigation
required by law. But the trial continued and thereafter the case was
submitted
to the court for decision. On January 2, 1957, his honor, Judge Jose S.
Bautista, issued an Order holding that, while the Court could not hold
the trial of the case without the requisite preliminary investigation,
it has however jurisdiction over the controversy because he "is of the
opinion that industrial employment is not a basic criterion in
determining
its jurisdiction in an unfair labor practice charge." He, therefore,
ordered
that the case be endorsed to the Prosecution Division of the Court for
such preliminary investigation. This Order was affirmed by the Court
en banc, with Judge Lanting taking no part and Judge Martinez
concurring
in the result. Hence, the present Petition for Review.
It appears that the
University of San Agustin, petitioner herein, is an educational
institution
conducted and managed by a "religious non-stock corporation duly
organized
and existing under the laws of the Philippines." It was organized not
for
profit or gain or division of the dividends among its stockholders, but
solely for religious and educational purposes. It likewise appears that
the Philippine Association of College and University Professors,
respondent
herein, is a non-stock association composed of professors and teachers
in different colleges and universities and that since its organization
two years ago, the university has adopted a hostile attitude to its
formation
and has tried to discriminate, harass and intimidate its members for
which
reason, the association and the members affected filed the unfair labor
practice complaint which initiated this proceeding. To the complaint of
unfair labor practice, petitioner filed an answer wherein it disputed
the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations over the controversy
on the following grounds:
"[a] That
complainants
therein being college and/or university professors were not
'industrial'
laborers or employees, and the Philippine Association of College and
University
Professors being composed of persons engaged in the teaching
profession,
is not and cannot be a legitimate labor organization within the meaning
of the laws creating the Court of Industrial Relations and defining its
powers and functions;
"[b] That the
University
of San Agustin, respondent therein, is not an institution established
for
the purpose of gain or division of profits, and consequently, it is not
an 'industrial' enterprise and the members of its teaching staff are
not
engaged in 'industrial' employment [U.S.T. Hospital Employees
Association
vs. Sto Tomas University Hospital, 95 Phil. 40; and San Beda College
vs.
Court of Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, 97 Phil. 787,
29
October 1955; 51 Off. Gaz. (Nov. 1955) (5636-5640)]; and
"[c] That, as a
necessary
consequence, the alleged controversy between therein complainants and
respondent
is not an 'industrial' dispute, and the Court of Industrial Relations
has
no jurisdiction, not only on the parties but also over the subject
matter
of the complaint."
The issue now before us
is: Since the University of San Agustin is not an institution
established
for profit or gain, nor an industrial enterprise, but one established
exclusively
for educational purposes, can it be said that its relation with its
professors
is one of employer and employee that comes under the jurisdiction of
the
Court of Industrial Relations? In other words, do the provisions of the
Magna Carta on unfair labor practice apply to the relation between
petitioner
and members of respondent association?
The issue is not new.
Thus, in the case of Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Juliana V.
Araos,
[102 Phil., 1080], promulgated on January 29, 1958, this Court,
speaking
thru Mr. Justice Montemayor, answered the query in the negative in the
following wise:
"The main issue
involved
in the present case is whether or not a charitable institution or one
organized
not for profit but for more elevated purposes, charitable humanitarian,
etc., like the Boy Scouts of the Philippines is included in the
definition
of 'employer' contained in Republic Act 875, and whether the employees
of said institution fall under the definition of 'employee' also
contained
in the same Republic Act. If they are included, then any act which may
he considered unfair labor practice, within the meaning of said
Republic
Act, would come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations;
but if they do not fall within the scope of said Republic Act,
particularly,
its definitions of employer and employee, then the Industrial Court
would
have no jurisdiction at all.
xxx
"On the basis of the
foregoing considerations, there is every reason to believe that our
labor
legislation from Commonwealth Act No. 103, creating the Court of
Industrial
Relation, down through the Eight Hour Labor Law, to the Industrial
Peace
Act, was intended by the Legislature to apply only to industrial
employment
and to govern the relations between employers engaged in industry and
occupations
for purposes of profit and gain, and their industrial employees, but
not
to organizations and entities which are organized, operated, and
maintained
not for profit or gain, but for elevated and lofty purposes, such as,
charity,
social service, education and instruction, hospital and medical
service,
the encouragement and promotion of character, patriotism and kindred
virtues
in the youth of the nation, etc.
"In conclusion, we
find and hold that Republic Act No. 875, particularly, that portion
thereof
regarding labor disputes and unfair labor practice, does not apply to
the
Boy Scouts of the Philippines, and consequently, the Court of
Industrial
Relations had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the action or
petition
filed by respondent Araos. Wherefore, the appealed decision and
resolution
of the CIR are hereby set aside, with costs against respondent."
There being a close analogy
between the relation and facts involved in the two cases, we cannot but
conclude that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint for unfair labor practices lodged by respondent
association against petitioner and, therefore, we hereby set aside the
Order and Resolution subject of the present petition, with costs
against
respondent association.
Paras, C.J.,
Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, and Felix, JJ.,
concur.
Separate
Opinion
REYES,
J. B. L., J.,
Dissenting:
I dissent for the
reasons
expressed in the dissenting opinion in Boy Scouts of the Philippines
vs.
J. V. Araos, 102 Phil. 1080.
Concepcion, J.,
concurs in the foregoing dissent. |