You are on page 1of 1


47 SCRA 517

 Defendant Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. in Lapu-Lapu 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 28, 1964, the defendant Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. and the ALU
Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement which mandates a profit sharing bonus of
10% of its net income derived from the direct operation of its shipyard and shop in Lapu-Lapu
City for its laborers and workers. The profit sharing bonus shall be paid by the company to ALU of
which ALU will deliver it to the employees. Unclaimed bonuses shall be returned to the
management. The delivery will be in 2 instalments, 1 st payable in March and the 2nd payable in
June every year.
 In 1965, the 2nd instalment given in June was not received by members of the rival MWU
because they did not go to the ALU office to receive their shares.
 After the 60 day period lapsed, 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.
 The MWU filed a case with the lower court to recover the 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.

1. WON the intervenor ALU and defendant company violated the terms and conditions of the CBA
2. WON plaintiff MWU followed the proper grievance procedure
3. WON intervenor ALU only represents its members and not the entire workforce of defendant

HELD: Decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. Petition dismissed.

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 laborers 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 v. 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’etre of labor unions.