Title
Manila Club Employees Union vs. Manila Club, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-21501
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1967
Manila Club, a non-profit social entity, faced unfair labor practice charges; court ruled no jurisdiction as it wasn’t profit-driven under Republic Act 875.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105760)

Background Facts

The Manila Club was established as a non-stock corporation on August 23, 1907, with a corporate life initially set for 50 years. It generated revenue from membership dues, alcohol sales, and restaurant income. Its corporate life expired on August 19, 1957, but it received a three-year extension. Before this extension ended, the Manila Club underwent re-establishment on August 10, 1960, as Manila Club, Inc., maintaining its name. Employees were offered the option of retirement or continued employment on a month-to-month basis, leading to varying responses from staff.

Initial Complaint and Proceedings

On February 10, 1961, the Manila Club Employees Union filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations, accusing the respondents of unfair labor practices, specifically their refusal to engage in collective bargaining and dismissing five employees. The respondents moved to dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction, which the petitioner opposed. The presiding judge initially ruled against the respondents, finding them guilty of unfair labor practices.

Jurisdictional Question and Decision

The Court of Industrial Relations later reconsidered its jurisdiction in a resolution dated May 28, 1963, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The primary issue for resolution was whether the Manila Club, Inc. was a non-profit organization or an entity organized for profit. Both the original Manila Club and the successor, Manila Club, Inc. were described in their articles of incorporation as non-stock and non-profit, focusing on promoting social relations among members rather than profit generation.

Legal Reasoning and Precedents

The legal analysis referenced various precedents, asserting that an organization's overall purpose, rather than its incidental profit-making activities, ought to determine its classification as a non-profit or profit-making entity. The court reiterated that operations such as restaurants may be necessary for serving members but do not shift the fundamental nature of the organization. Thus, it aligned its decision with prior rulings, such as College of Internal Revenue v. Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu and The Elks Club v. The United Laborers, emphasizing the non-profit character of clubs serving their memb

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.