GR L 9747; (February, 1959) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
The petitioner, Manila Lodge No. 761, B.P.O.E. (Elks Club), operated a dining room, kitchen, and bodega for its members. On September 15, 1953, the Club’s House Committee Chairman, John F. Dwyer, notified the respondent union’s president that the Club was discontinuing these operations due to continuous losses, resulting in the termination of 14 employees (12 of whom were union members). Each terminated employee received and cashed a check covering one month’s salary. On November 3, 1953, the respondent union filed charges of unfair labor practice against the petitioner in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), alleging violations of Section 4(a)(1) and (4) of Republic Act No. 875 and a breach of a working agreement clause requiring consultation with the union prior to layoffs. The petitioner defended the separations as necessitated by financial losses. After hearings and an examination of the Club’s finances, the CIR ruled in favor of the union, finding unfair labor practice and ordering the reinstatement of the dismissed employees with back pay, among other affirmative actions. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges of unfair labor practice against the petitioner Elks Club.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the CIR’s judgment and dismissed the unfair labor practice charges. The Court held that the CIR lacked jurisdiction over the case. Citing a line of precedents (including U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association vs. Santo Tomas University Hospital, San Beda College vs. Court of Industrial Relations, and Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos), the Court ruled that the Elks Club, as an entity created for the benefit and service of its members and not as a business run for profit, falls outside the jurisdiction of the CIR for unfair labor practice cases. The Court found that the issue of financial losses, while evidenced, was not decisive. Since the CIR should have dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction, the appealed judgment was reversed. No costs were awarded.