Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

095 Phil 40:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6988. May 24, 1954.]

U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, recurrente, contra STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, recurrido.

Sres. David T. Templonuevo y Jose E. Erfe en representacion de la recurrente.

Sres. Artiaga, Zaragosa y Molina en representacion del recurrido.


SYLLABUS


1. HOSPITAL DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE STO. TOMAS; NO FUE ESTABLICIDO PARA FINES DE LUCRO. — En la estipulacion de hechos sometidos por las partes en este caso, no hay nada que indique que el Hospital de la Universidad de Sto. Tomas sa haya establicido para fines de lucro. Al contario, se dice en dicha estipulacion que el hospital tiene 140 camas se dice pago y 203 gratuitas; que con lo que se recauda de las 140 camas de pago se sostienen las 203 camas gratuitas. No hay nigun indicio de que en esa operacion resultase un balance en favor del hospital que constituya ganancia.

2. ID.; ID.; OBJECTO PARA EL ESTABLICIMIENTO. — "The object of the establishment is to provide modern hospital facilities to both charity patients and pay-patients. The former is a source of material for instruction to medical students ands the latter to procure the funds necessary to partly finance the expenses of the free wards." Si esto es cierto, entonces los ingresos de las 140 camas de pago no son mas que "funds necessary to partly finance the expenses of the free wards." No debe tener ganancia entonces el hospital con los ingresos que recibe de las camas de pago, porque todo cuanto recauda n es suficiente presenta una parte de los gastos indispensables. de los hechos probados — que no podemos alterar — fuerza es conluir que el hospital esta funcionado no para fines de lucro sino para un fin mas elevado; el de servir a la humanidad doliente.

3. TRIBUNAL INDUSTRIAL; JURISDICTION; LOS PUESTOS OCCUPADOS POR LOS RECURRENTES NO SON "INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT" LA CONTROVERSIA "INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE" ; LA RECLAMACION NO ESTABAJO LA JURISDICCION DEL TRIBUNAL INDUSTRIAL. — No existen alegacion y prueba de que el Hospital de la Universidad de Sto Tomas se haya establicido con el proposito exclusivo de marginar ganancias y repartir dividendos; por tanto, no pueden considerarse como "industrial employment" los puestos ocupados por los miembros de la recurrente . Si no es "industrial employment tampoco se debe considerarse "industrial dispute" la controversia entre el hospital y los miembros de la recurrente. La reclamacion no esta, por tanto, bajo la jurisdiccion del Tribunal Industrial.


D E C I S I O N


PABLO, M. :


Tratase de un recurso de certiorari, por medio del cual la U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association pide que se revoque la orden de sobreseimiento dictada por el Tribunal Industrial en la causa No. 790- V, titulada U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association contra Sto. Tomas University Hospital.

La recurrente alega que en 3 de febrero de 1953 ambas partes sometieron una estipulacion de hechos: que en 7 de julio el Hon. Juez Bautista sobreseyo la demanda por no tener jurisdiccion el tribunal para conocer de la misma y que la mayoria del tribunal, compuesta de los Hons, Jueces Roldan, Bautista y Jimenez Yanson denego la mocion de reconsideracion, con la disidencia de los Hons. Jueces Lanting y Castillo.

La recurrente contiende que erro el Tribunal Industrial al declararse sin jurisdiccion para conocer de la causa.

El Tribunal Industrial no es un juzgado de primera instancia de jurisdiccion general; su jurisdiccion esta limitada por la ley que creo.

El articulo 1. ° de la Ley del Commonwealth No. 559, dice asi:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"Jurisdiction — Judges — There is created a Court of Industrial Relations hereinafter called the court, which shall have jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions, matters, controversies, or disputes arising between, and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulate the relations between them, subject to the provisions of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

El articulo 2 de la misma ley dice lo siguiente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. Section four of the same Act is amended to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 4. Strikes and lockouts. — The Court shall take cognizance for purposes of prevention, arbitration, decision, and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising from differences as regards wages, shares or compensation, dismissals, lay-offs, or suspensions of employees or laborers, tenants or farm-laborers, hours of labor, or conditions of tenancy or employment, between employers and employees or laborers, and between landlords and tenants or farm laborers, provided that the number of employees, laborers or tenants or farm-laborers involved exceed thirty, and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by the Secretary of Labor, or by any or both of the parties to the controversy."cralaw virtua1aw library

Y el articulo 22 de la Ley de la República No. 772, define los terminos diciendo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Definition of various words. — In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise, the definition of various words used therein shall be as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) ’Employer’ includes every person or association of persons, incorporated or not, public or private, and the legal representative of the deceased employer . . .

"(b) ’Laborer’ is used as a synonym of "Employee’ and means every person who has entered the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for an employer. . . .

"(d) ’Industrial employment’ in case of private employers includes all employment or work at a trade, occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain, except domestic service."cralaw virtua1aw library

La estipulacion de hechos sometida por las partes en la causa original es la siguiente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ESTIPULATION OF FACTS

"1. That the petitioner U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association, is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor under Registration No. 1073;

"2. That the respondent U.S.T. Hospital is an institution owned by the Pontifical University of Sto. Tomas, managed and operated by an Administrator;

"3. That the service being rendered by the Hospital to the public is, by its very nature, continuous i.e. that the service rendered by the Hospital cannot be suspended on Sundays and legal holidays;

"4. That on May 9, 1951, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract for a period of one year from and after May 15, 1951, which was renewed last May 15, 1952 for another year up to and expiring on May 15, 1953. A copy of said agreement is attached as Annex "A" of the original petition;

"5. That prior to the signing of the agreement on May 9, 1951, a majority of the employees of the respondent, including members of the petitioning Union, were required to work and were working 7 days a week, i.e. including Sundays and holidays;

"6. That in accordance with the agreement, the respondent Hospital paid the members of the petitioning Union a monthly salary of P120.00 each from and after May 15, 1951, for those employees who were living outside and P50 monthly in cash and P70 monthly in the form of subsistence and quarters for those employees who, because of the nature of their work were required to stay in the quarters provided by the Hospital. The respondent Hospital from August, 1951, without demand from the members of the petitioning Union, increased their salaries, in accordance with the respondent’s view of the law, such that they are now receiving a monthly salary of P122 a month cash for those living outside and P56 monthly in cash and P66 monthly in the form of subsistence and quarters for those employees who, because of the nature of their work, were required to stay in the quarters provided by the Hospital;

7. That after the signing of the agreement, the majority of the employees of the respondent Hospital, including members of the Union, continued to work on Sundays and holidays without being paid additional compensation therefor;

"8. That the respondent is an hospital institution which has a pay ward with a bed capacity of 140 and a charity ward with a 203 bed capacity;

"9. That the respondent has not secured a permit from the Secretary of Labor to require their employees to work on Sundays and holidays on the sincere and honest belief that hospitals are exempted from the operation of the 8-hour labor law and can require their employees to work on Sundays and holidays;

"10. That the employees of the respondent, including members of the Union, who are assigned to work during night time are not paid any premium or additional pay aside from the regular salary. "Manila, Philippines, February 3, 1953."cralaw virtua1aw library

De dicha estipulacion no hay nada que indique que el Hospital de la Universidad de Sto. Tomas se haya establecido para fines de lucro. Al contrario, se dice en la estipulacion de hechos que el recurrido "es una institucion que tiene 140 camas de pago y 203 camas gratuitas; que con lo que se recaude de las 140 camas de pago se sostienen las 203 camas gratuitas. No hay ningún indicio de que en esa operacion haya un balance en favor del hospital que constituya ganancia.

En una carta — dice el expediente — que dirigio el Rector de la Universidad de Sto. Tomas al Director de Sanidad, pidiendo permiso para establecer un hospital privado, aquel dijo: "The object of the establishment is to provide modern hospital facilities to both charity patients and pay-patients. The former is a source of material for instruction to medical students and the latter to procure the funds necessary to partly finance the expenses of the free ward." Si esto es cierto, entonces los ingresos de las 140 camas de pago no son mas que "funds necessary to partly finance the expenses of the free wards." No debe tener ganancia entonces el hospital con los ingresos que recibe de las camas de pago, porque todo cuanto recauda no es suficiente para el mantenimiento gratuito de 203 camas, sino solo representa una parte de los gastos indispensables.

Se arguye que como el hospital proporciona material para la instruccion de estudiantes de la Escuela de Medicina y que esta recibe derechos de matricula e instruccion, el hospital, por tanto, debe ganar por los ingresos de la escuela. Esta es una inferencia forzada, porque el recurrido es el hospital, no la escuela de medicina de la Universidad de Sto. Tomas; no existe prueba de que la escuela de medicina pagase algo al hospital por el servicio que este la proporciona. Si la escuela de medicina fuese la recurrida y no el hospital solamente, la cuestion probablemente seria distinta. Parte de las conclusiones de hecho del Tribunal Industrial es la siguiente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

There is no other means of supporting the Hospital than the pay section. All the expenses are supplied exclusively by the pay ward. Although it was established for the instruction of medical students, the matriculation fees paid by said students are devoted exclusively to the maintenance of the College of Medicine. Thus, no part of the said tuition fees goes to the sustenance of the charity ward.

"The University of Sto. Tomas, far from making money from the pay ward, as its own profit, still pays the medicines of patients of the free ward.

"Since the free ward section is free for everybody, where all routine treatment needed, such as food, bed, medicines, operation, is supplied gratis by the Hospital, it is clear that the respondent is a charitable institution. It is undoubted that the purpose of the hospital is not primarily to obtain money. Such purposes, in the language of the witness Dr. Ramos, is: "This is killing two birds with one stone; providing instruction to medical students, and at the same time, the public is free to enter the Hospital." (t. s. n., p. 21, hearing of April 20, 1953).

De los hechos probados — que no podemos alterar fuerza es concluir que el hospital esta funcionando no para fines de lucro sino para un fin mas elevado: el de servir a la humanidad doliente.

El recurrido es "employer" y los miembros de la recurrente son "laborers" o "employees" de acuerdo con el articulo 2 de la Ley de la República No. 772. ¿Se puede considerar como "industrial employment", de acuerdo con dicho articulo, el trabajo que desempeña cada uno de los miembros de la recurrente en el hospital cuando este no funciona con el fin de negociar? No existe alegacion ni en la solicitud presentada en la causa No. 790-V, ni en el presente recurso, ni existen pruebas de que el Hospital de la Universidad de Sto. Tomas se haya establecido con el proposito exclusivo de marginar ganancias y repartir dividendos; por tanto, no pueden ser considerados como "industrial employment" los puestos ocupados por los miembros de la recurrente. Si no es "industrial employment", tampoco debe considerarse "industrial dispute" la controversia entre el hospital y los miembros de la recurrente. La reclamacion no esta, por tanto, bajo la jurisdiccion del Tribunal Industrial como no lo esta la demanda de los que trabajan en el servicio domestico.

Como la demanda en la causa original NO. 790-V se presento en el Tribunal Industrial el 7 de enero de 1953, mas de ocho meses despues de aprobada la Ley de la República No. 772, no merece seria consideracion el segundo error atribuido a dicho Tribunal. Se deniega la peticion con costas contra la recurrente.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A.; Jugo, Bautista Angelo y Labrador, MM., estan conformes.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205