Title
Betting Ushers Union vs. Jai Alai Corporation of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. L-9330
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1957
Betting ushers sought minimum wage from Jai Alai Corp.; union dismissed case after majority resolution. SC upheld dismissal, citing union authority, no due process violation, and moot jurisdiction.

Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 216-CFI)

Background of Litigation

Prior to filing the petition, the Wage Administration Service (WAS) had been investigating Jai Alai Corporation regarding its obligation to pay minimum wages as per Republic Act No. 602. The Court of First Instance intervened on the corporation's request, ruling that the betting ushers operated under a concession and hence were not considered employees entitled to the minimum wage protections. The Court dismissed the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association's counterclaim for unpaid wages, following which the acting chief of the WAS filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Petition to the Court of Industrial Relations

Subsequently, the Betting Ushers Union (PLUM), notably distinct from the previously mentioned association although representing the same group, petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations, seeking the enforcement of minimum wage laws against Jai Alai Corporation. The corporation responded with multiple defenses, including lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, and the pendency of a prior case as a basis for a motion to dismiss.

Amendment of Defenses and Strategic Actions

In light of developments, Jai Alai Corporation amended its defense to include the doctrine of res judicata, asserting that the prior judgment rendered in the Court of First Instance was final and binding. The response from the corporation included a supplemental motion to dismiss based on an explicit dismissal request from 64 out of the 65 union members, reflecting a significant shift in their stance regarding the case.

Opposition to Motion for Dismissal

The attorneys previously representing the union opposed the corporation's motion for dismissal, highlighting that many members had not authorized the dismissal. They argued that the dismissal could not proceed without the proper resolution from the union, particularly as it had not received widespread approval from all members. This opposition revealed tensions within the union's membership and the potential for miscommunication regarding the members' interests.

Court’s Dismissal Resolution

Despite the opposition, the Industrial Court dismissed the case with prejudice based on the motion filed by the union's board of directors, asserting it was authorized by the majority of the members. This dismissal raised issues regarding whether the attorneys had the authority to challenge the decision, especially following the formal notification of the cessation of their legal representation.

Reconsideration and Denial

After the dismissal, the attorneys sought reconsideration, claiming a lack of authorization by the signers of the dismissal resolution, which they alleged had been imposed under false pretenses. Nevertheless, the corporation presented evidence suggesting that a notable majority of the signers, including 56 members, actually sought the dismissal, negating the attorneys’ assertions of improper inducement.

Appellate Review and Conclusion

Upon review, the Industrial Court en banc denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the dismissal. The court articulated that the actions taken were within th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.