G.R. No. L-9330. June 29, 1957.
BETTING USHERS UNION (PLUM), petitioner, vs. JAI ALAI CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The Betting Ushers Union (PLUM) filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to compel the Jai Alai Corporation to pay its betting ushers the minimum wage under Republic Act No. 602 . Previously, the Wage Administration Service (WAS) had investigated this liability, but the Court of First Instance of Manila, in a related civil case, enjoined the investigation, ruling the ushers were not employees of the corporation and thus not entitled to the minimum wage. That court also denied a counterclaim for unpaid minimum wages filed by the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association (considered the same entity as the petitioner union). The WAS appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court, but the Association/Union did not. Instead, the Union filed the present petition in the CIR for the same wage claim. The corporation raised defenses of lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, and res judicata. Subsequently, 64 out of 65 union members sent a letter to the corporation’s general manager authorizing him to seek dismissal of the CIR case for lack of merit. The union itself, through a resolution of its members and its board of directors, filed a motion to dismiss the case “with prejudice.” The union’s attorneys, Rafael and Ilustre, opposed this motion, claiming lack of knowledge of the members’ letter and questioning its authenticity. Despite this opposition, the CIR judge granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice on March 30, 1955. The attorneys then filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that 40 members had not authorized the dismissal and had signed the letter under the condition of being fully compensated. The corporation opposed, presenting sworn statements from a majority of union members affirming their desire to dismiss the case because they were not employees and that their earlier signatures on a contrary resolution were obtained under a misapprehension. The CIR en banc denied the motion for reconsideration. The union’s attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations acted properly in dismissing the petition for minimum wage upon the motion of the petitioning union itself.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court held that the CIR did not abuse its discretion or violate any legal rule in dismissing the case. The dismissal was decreed upon the motion filed by the petitioning union itself, through its board of directors, acting in accordance with the wishes of an overwhelming majority of its members (64 out of 65). The attempt by Attys. Rafael and Ilustre to show a lack of authorization through a resolution of 40 members was contradicted by subsequent sworn statements from more than three-fourths of those signers, who clarified their real desire was to dismiss the case as they were not employees. The will of the great majority of the union members must prevail. Furthermore, the attorneys’ authority to seek reconsideration was questionable after the union had notified them that their services were dispensed with. The objection of lack of due process was without basis, as the attorneys did not appear at a hearing held on the matter. The petition was denied.