Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
vs.
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.
G.R. No. L-19017 . December 27, 1963
FACTS:
The National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union of the Philippines (PAFLU) filed before
the Court of First Instance of Manila against the San Miguel Brewery, Inc. a complaint alleging, among
others, that said union and the company entered into a collective bargaining agreement which provides
that the company will pay the basic daily rates of those workers within the bargaining unit who may
participate in the Labor Day parade. Hence, about 600 members of the union joined and participated in
said parade whose total basic daily wage amounts to P3,900.00. The union demanded payment; but, the
company refused to do so. Thus, the union filed a case against the company for payment of the said
amount, actual or compensatory damages, as well as moral and exemplary damages, and 6,000 pesos
for the attorneys fees.
The company in its answer set up special and affirmative defenses. Among those, the company
alleged that the union has no cause of action against the company since the union is not the real party in
interest but the individual members whose right to recover the one day's wage is personal to them. The
lower court issued an order requiring the complaint to be amended by including as parties plaintiffs the
real parties in interest. The union submitted a motion for reconsideration. The company in turn moved for
outright dismissal of the complaint on the plea that lack of cause of action is not correctible by
amendment. Both motions were denied, but after the company had sought reconsideration on the ground
that the union failed to amend the complaint despite the lapse of the 10-day period given to it to do so, an
order was issued dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Hence, the present appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the union has cause of action against the company.
RULING:
YES. It was held by the Supreme Court that Section 3, Rule 3 of our Rules of Court, wherein it is
provided, among others, that a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the
benefit of another may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented
or defended even if the court may at its discretion order such beneficiary to be made also a party.
The union is the party with whom or in whose name the collective bargaining agreement in
question has been entered into for the benefit of its members and, in line with the above rule, the union
may sue thereon without joining the members for whose benefit the action has been presented. This is
especially so when to join said members would be cumbersome because they amount to more than 600.
The Court ruled that the orders appealed from are set aside and the case is remanded to the
court a quo for further proceedings.
Soliman, Rhea-Ann J.
ISSUE:
1.
2.
Whether the (non-stock) corporation may institute an action in behalf of its individual members for
the recovery of certain parcels of land allegedly owned by said members.
Whether the complaint filed by the corporation in behalf of its members may be treated as a class
suit.
RULING:
Soliman, Rhea-Ann J.
Soliman, Rhea-Ann J.