VOL.

45, JUNE 30, 1972 577 plaintiff to what was due its members under such collective bargaining agreement was
Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz meritorious that led it to rely on alleged procedural obstacles for the reversal sought.
56 Intervenor, however, has not thereby dented the judgment. As will be more fully explained,
MACTAN WORKERS UNION and TOMAS FERRER, as President thereof, plaintiffs- there are no applicable procedural doctrines that stand in the way of plaintiff’s suit. We affirm.
appellees, vs. DON RAMON ABOITIZ, President, Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc.; The facts are not in dispute. According to the decision: “From the evidence presented it
EDDIE LIM, as Treasurer; JESUS DIAGO, Superintendent of the aforesaid corporation; appears that the defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. in Lapulapu City is
WILFREDO VIRAY, as Resident Manager of the Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc.; and employing laborers and employees belonging to two rival labor unions. Seventy-two of these
the CEBU SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS, INC, defendants-appellees; employees or laborers whose names appear in the complaint are affiliated with the Mactan
ASSOCIATION LABOR UNION, intervenor-appellant. Workers Union while the rest are members of the intervenor Associated Labor Union. On
Industrial Peace Act; Collective bargaining agreement; Effect of.—The terms and November 28, 1964, the defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. and the
conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. Those Associated Labor Union entered into a ‘Collective Bargaining Agreement’* * * the pertinent
who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event that an obligation therein part of which, Article XIII thereof, [reads thus]:’ * * *. The [Company] agrees to give a profit-
imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress. sharing bonus to its employees and laborers to be taken from ten per cent (10%) of its net
Some; Same; Collective bargaining agreement benefits extend even to non-union profits or net income derived from the direct operation of its shipyard and shop in Lapu-Lapu
members.—It is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement City and after deducting the income tax and the bonus annually given to its General Manager
extend to the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit, including those who do and the Superintendent and the members of the Board of Directors and Secretary of the
not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. Corporation, to be payable in two (2) installments, the first installment being payable in March
Same; Same; Enforcement of collective bargaining agreement cognizable by ordinary and the second installment in June, each year out of the profits in agreement. In the
courts.—Section 88 of the Judiciary Act in providing for the original jurisdiction of city courts computation of said ten per cent (10%) to [be] distributed as a bonus among the employees
in civil cases provides: “In all civil actions, including those mentioned in Rules fifty-nine and and laborers of the [Company] in proportion to their salaries or wages, only the income
sixty-two (now Rules 57 and 60) of the Rules of Court, arising in his municipality or city, and derived by the [Company] from the direct operation of its shipyard and shop in Lapulapu City,
not exclusively cognizable by the Court of First Instance, the municipal judge and the judge of as stated herein-above-commencing from the earnings during the year 1964, shall be included.
a city court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter or Said profit-sharing bonus shall be paid by the [Company] to [Associated Labor Union] to be
amount of the demand does not exceed ten thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs.” delivered by the latter to the employees and laborers concerned and it shall be the duty of the
The amount claimed by plaintiff on behalf of its members was P4,035.82 and if the damages Associated Labor Union to furnish and deliver to the [Company] the corresponding receipts
and attorneys’ fees be added, the total sum was less than P10,000.00. It is true that if an duly signed by the laborers and employees entitled to receive the profit-sharing bonus within a
element of unfair labor practice may be discerned in a suit for the enforcement of a collective period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt by [it] from the [Company] of the profit-
bargaining contract, then the matter is solely cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. It sharing bonus. If a laborer or employee of the [Company] does not want to accept the profit-
is equally true that as of the date the lower court decision was rendered, the question of such sharing bonus which the said employees or laborer is entitled under this Agreement, it shall be
enforcement had been held to be for the regular courts to pass upon. the duty of the [Associated Labor Union] to return to the money received by [it] as profit-
sharing bonus to the [Company] with a period of sixty (60) days from the receipt by the
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Borromeo, J . [Union] from the [Company] of the said profit-sharing bonus.’” 3 The decision went on to state:
“In compliance with the said collective bargaining agreement, in March, 1965 the defendant
Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. delivered to the ALU for distribution to the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
laborers or employees working with the defendant corporation to the profit-sharing bonus
     Seno, Mendoza & Associates for intervenor-appellant.
corresponding to the first installment for the year 1965. Again in June 1965 the defendant
     Andales Law Office for plaintiffs-appellees.
corporation delivered to the Associated Labor Union the profit-sharing bonus corresponding to
     Pedro B. Uy Calderon for defendants-appellees.
the second installment for the 1965. The members of the Mactan Workers Union failed to
receive their shares in the second installment of bonus because they did not like to go to the
FERNANDO, J.: office of the ALU to collect their shares. In accordance with the terms of the collective
bargaining after 60 days, the uncollected shares of the plaintiff union members was returned
The dispute in this appealed decision from the Court of First Instance of Cebu on questions of by the ALU to the defendant corporation. At the same time the defendant corporation was
law is between plaintiff Mactan Workers Union 1 and intervenor Associated Labor Union. The advised by the ALU not to deliver the said amount to the members of the Mactan Workers
former in its complaint on behalf of seventy-two of its members working in defendant Union unless ordered by the Court, otherwise the ALU will take such step to protect the
corporation, Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. 2 did file a money claim in the interest of its members * * *. Because this warning given by the intervenor union the
amount of P4,035.82 representing the second installment of a profit-sharing agreement under a defendant corporation did not pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P4,035.82 which was returned
collective bargaining contract entered into between such business firm and intervenor labor by the Associated Labor Union, but instead, deposited the said amount with the Labor
union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its workers The plaintiff was Administrator. For the recovery of this amount this case was filed with the lower court.” 4
successful both in the City Court of Lapulapu where such complaint was first started as well as The dispositive portion of such decision follows: “[Wherefore], judgment is hereby
in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. It is from the decision of the latter court, rendered on rendered ordering the defendants to deliver to the Associated Labor Union the sum of P4,-
February 22, 1968, that this appeal was interposed by intervenor Associated Labor Union. It 035.82 for distribution to the employees of the defendant corporation who are members of the
must have been an awareness on appellant’s part that on the substantive aspect, the claim of
Page 1 of 3
Mactan Workers Union; and ordering the intervenor Associated Labor Union, immediately fees be added, the total sum was less than P10,000.00. Section 88 of the Judiciary Act in
after receipt of the said amount, to pay the members of the Mactan Workers Union their providing for the original jurisdiction of city courts in civil cases provides: “In all civil actions,
corresponding shares in the profit-sharing bonus for the second installments for the year including those mentioned in Rules fifty-nine and sixty-two (now Rules 57 and 60) of the
1965.”5 Rules of Court, arising in his municipality or city, and not exclusively cognizable by the Court
It is from such a decision that an appeal was taken by intervenor Associated Labor Union. of First Instance, the municipal judge and the judge of a city court shall have exclusive
As is quite apparent on the face of such judgment, the lower court did nothing except to original jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter or amount of the demand does not
require literal compliance with the terms of a collective bargaining contract. Nor, as will be exceed ten thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs.” 10 It is true that if an element of
hereafter discussed, has any weakness thereof been demonstrated on the procedural questions unfair labor practice may be discerned in a suit for the enforcement of a collective bargaining
raised by appellant. To repeat, we have to affirm. contract, then the matter is solely cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. 11 It is
1. The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between equally true that as of the date the lower court decision was rendered, the question of such
the parties. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event that an enforcement had been held to be for the regular courts to pass upon. 12 Counsel for intervenor
obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right to go to court for Associated Labor Union was precisely the petitioner in one of the decisions of this
redress.6 Nor does it suffice as a defense that the claim is made on behalf of non-members of Court, Seno v. Mendoza,13 where such a doctrine was reiterated. In the language of Justice
intervenor Associated Labor Union, for it is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a Makalintal, the ponente: “As the issue involved in the instant case, although arising from a
collective bargaining agreement extend to the laborers and employees in the collective labor dispute, does not refer to one affecting an industry which is indispensable to the national
bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor interest and certified by the President to the Industrial Court, nor to minimum wage under the
organization.7 Any other view would be a discrimination on which the law frowns. It is Minimum Wage Law, or to hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, nor to an
appropriate that such should be the case. As was held in United Restauror’s Employees and unfair labor practice, but seeks the enforcement of a provision of the collective bargaining
Labor Union v. Torres,8 this Court speaking through Justice Sanchez, “the right to be the agreement, * * *, jurisdiction pertains to the ordinary courts and not to the Industrial
exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is Court.”14 There was only a half-hearted attempt, if it could be called that, to lend credence to
vested in the labor union ‘designated or selected’ for such purpose ‘by the majority of the the third error assigned, namely that plaintiff Mactan Workers Union could not file the suit on
employees’ in the unit concerned.” 9 If it were otherwise, the highly salutory purpose and behalf of its members. That is evident by intervenor Associated Labor Union devoting only
objective of the collective bargaining scheme to enable labor to secure better terms in half a page in its brief to such an assertion. It is easy to see why it should be thus. On its face,
employment condition as well as rates of pay would be frustrated insofar as non-members are it certainly appeared to be oblivious of how far a labor union can go, or is expected to, in the
concerned, deprived as they are of participation in whatever advantages could thereby be defense of the rights of its rank and file. There was an element of surprise, considering that
gained. The labor union that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative such a contention came from a labor organization, which under normal condition should be the
does not act for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. It last to lay itself open to a charge that it is not averse to denigrating the effectiveness of labor
is not to be indulged in any attempt on its part to disregard the rights of non-members. Yet that unions.
is what intervenor labor union was guilty of, resulting in the complaint filed on behalf of the 3. This brings us to one last point. It is quite understandable that labor unions in their
laborers, who were in the ranks of plaintiff Mactan Labor Union. campaign for membership, for acquiring ascendancy in any shop, plant, or industry would do
The outcome was not at all unexpected. The right being clear all that had to be done was what lies in their power to put down competing groups. The struggle is likely to be marked
to see to its enforcement. Nor did the lower court in the decision now on appeal, require- with bitterness, no quarter being given or expected on the part of either side. Nevertheless, it is
anything else other than that set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. All that was done not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more
was to have the covenants therein contained as to the profit-sharing scheme carried out and specifically the working men and women, not labor organizations. The latter are merely the
respected. It would be next to impossible for intervenor Associated Labor Union to point to instrumentalities through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered. That is
any feature thereof that could not in any wise be objected to as repugnant to the provisions of the raison d’etre of labor unions. The utmost care should be taken then, lest in displaying an
the collective bargaining contract. Certainly the lower court, as did the City Court of unyielding, intransigent attitude on behalf of their members, injustice be committed against
Lapulapu, restricted itself to compelling the parties to abide by what was agreed upon. How opposing labor organizations. In the final analysis, they alone are not the sole victims, but the
then can the appealed decision be impugned? labor movement itself, which may well be the recipient of a crippling blow. Moreover, while it
2. Intervenor Associated Labor Union, laboring under such a predicament had perforce to rely is equally understandable that their counsel would take advantage of every legal doctrine
on what it considered procedural lapses. It would assail the alleged lack of a cause of action, deemed applicable or conjure up any defense that could serve their cause, still, as officers of
of jurisdiction of the City Court of Lapulapu and of personality of the Mactan Workers Union the court, there should be an awareness that resort to such a technique does result in clogged
to represent its members. There is no merit to such an approach. The highly sophistical line of dockets, without the least justification especially so if there be insistence on flimsy and
argument followed in its brief as appellant does not carry a persuasive ring. What is apparent insubstantial contentions just to give some semblance of plausibility to their pleadings.
is that intervenor was hard put to prop up what was inherently a weak, not to say an Certainly, technical virtuosity, or what passes for it, is no substitute for an earnest and sincere
indefensible, stand. The impression given is that of a litigant clutching at straws. desire to assure that there be justice according to law. That is a creed to which all members of
How can the allegation of a lack of a cause of action be taken seriously when precisely the legal profession, labor lawyers not excluded, should do their best to live by.
there was a right violated on the part of the members of plaintiff Mactan Workers Union, a WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of February 22, 1968 is affirmed. Costs
grievance that called for redress? The assignment of error that the City Court of Lapulapu was against Associated Labor Union.
bereft of jurisdiction is singularly unpersuasive. The amount claimed by plaintiff Mactan      Concepcion, CJ., Reyes,
Workers Union on behalf of its members was P4,035.82 and if the damages and attorney’s J.BL., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., concur.

Page 2 of 3
 Decision affirmed.
Notes.—a) No concurrent jurisdiction between the Court of First Instance and the Court
of Industrial Relations.—Labor disputes arising out of an unfair labor practice committed by
any of the parties do not present a question of concurrent jurisdiction between the Court of
First Instance and the Industrial Court. (Veterans Security Free Workers Union vs.
Cloribel, 31 SCRA 297).
b) Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.—The Court of First Instance has
jurisdiction over the enforcement of the contractual obligations arising from a collective
bargaining agreement. (National Brewery & Allied Industrial Labor Union vs. Cloribel, 20
SCRA 1083.)

Page 3 of 3