Case Digest_mactan Workers vs Aboitiz

Roland C. de la Cruz CASE No. 12. GR No. L-30241 June 30,1972 MACTAN WORKERS UNION VS ABOITIZ 47 SCRA 517 FACTS: Defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. in Lapulapu City is employing laborers and employees belonging to two rival labor unions. Namely plaintiff, Mactan Workers Union(MWU) and intervenor appellant Associated Labor Union (ALU). On November November 28, 1964, the defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. and the Associated Labor Union entered into a ‘Collective Bargaining Ag reement which mandate a profit sharing bonus of 10% of its net income derived from the direct operation of its shipyard and shop in LapuLapu City for its labourers and workers. The profit sharing bonus shall be paid by the company to  ALU of which ALU will deliver deliver it to the employees. Unclaimed Unclaimed bonuses shall be returned returned to the st management. The delivery should be in 2 instalments, 1   payable in March and the 2 nd payable in June every year. In 1965, the 2 nd  instalment given in June were not received by members of the rival Mactan Workers Union (MWU) because they did not went to the ALU office to receive their shares. After the 60 day period has lapse, ALU returned the funds to the management with an advice to management to refrain from delivering the amount to the members of MWU without a court order otherwise ALU will take steps to protect the interests of its members. Because of the warning from ALU, the company deposited the amount of P4,035.82 with the Labor  Administrator.  Administrator. The MWU MWU filed a case case with the lower lower court to recover recover the the amount. amount. The lower court ordered the company to deliver the sum of money to ALU and for ALU to pay the members of MWU their corresponding shares. Hence, the appeal of intervenor ALU. ISSUE: 1. WON the intervenor ALU and defendant defendant company violated the terms and conditions of the CBA 2. WON Plaintiff MWU followed the proper grievance procedure 3. WON Intervenor ALU only represent its members and not the entire entire workforce of Defendant company HELD: Decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. Petition dismissed. RATIO: 1. Yes, the terms and conditions of the CBA constitute the law between the parties. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. It is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a CBA extend to the labourers and employees in the collective bargaining unit including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. 2. Yes, the Mactan Workers Union claim of P4,035.82 plus damages and attorney’s fees will have a sum of less than P10,000.00 and under Sec 88 of the Judiciary Act

mandates that the city judge shall have original jurisdiction where value of reward does not exceed P10,000.00. In the case of Seno vs Mendoza, in the language of Justice Makalintal in seeking the enforcement of a provision of the CBA, jurisdiction pertains to the ordinary court and not to the industrial court. 3. The Labor Union that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative does not act for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. It is not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, more specifically the workers, not labor organizations. That is the Raison D’etere of labor unions.