G.R. No. L-10091; January 29, 1958
BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JULIANA V. ARAOS, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP), is a public corporation created under Commonwealth Act No. 111 , with objectives “solely of a benevolent character and not for pecuniary profit.” Respondent Juliana V. Araos was employed as a scout executive from 1948 until her dismissal on June 1, 1954. She organized the BSP Employees Welfare Association, a labor union, and became its president. On January 29, 1954, she filed charges with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against Exequiel Villacorta, the Chief Scout Executive, for alleged anomalies. She also distributed copies of these charges to various parties, including the BSP Executive Board, the Presidential Complaint and Action Committee, and delegates to a BSP National Council Meeting. Following an investigation, the BSP’s Personnel Committee, by letter dated May 18, 1954, charged Araos with engaging in activities inimical to the BSP’s interests. After she submitted her explanation, the Committee found her guilty and recommended her dismissal. BSP President Jose B. Vargas dismissed her on June 1, 1954. Araos then filed a case with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875 , alleging her dismissal was due to her union activities. The CIR, after trial, ordered the BSP to cease such dismissals, reinstate Araos with back pay, and post the decision. The BSP’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Is the Boy Scouts of the Philippines an employer as contemplated by Republic Act No. 875 , and was the controversy between it and the respondent a labor or industrial dispute cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the CIR had no jurisdiction over the case. The BSP is a civic and benevolent institution not operated for profit. Following the doctrine established in U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association vs. Santo Tomas University Hospital and reiterated in San Beda College vs. National Labor Union, et al., the Court ruled that employment in such non-profit, charitable institutions does not constitute industrial employment, and controversies arising therefrom are not industrial disputes cognizable by the CIR under Republic Act No. 875 . The Court emphasized that the BSP’s purpose is the promotion of character and patriotism in boys, not pecuniary gain. Therefore, the dispute between Araos and the BSP fell outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. The decision and resolution of the CIR were set aside.