Labor Standards_3

8/10/2019 Labor Standards_3

1/14

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-50999 March 23, 1990

JOSE SONGCO, ROMEO CIPRES, and AMANCIO MANUEL, petitioners,vsNAIONAL LA!OR RELAIONS COMMISSION "#IRS $I%ISION&, LA!OR AR!IER #LA%IO AGUAS, and #.E. 'UELLIG "M&,INC., respondents.

Raul E. Espinosa for petitioners.Lucas Emmanuel B. Canilao for petitioner A. Manuel.

Atienza, Tabora, Del Rosario & Castillo for private respondent.

ME$IAL$EA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorariseeking to modify the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. RB-I-!"#$"-%#-T entitled, &ose !on"co and Romeo Cipres, Complainants#Appellants, v. $.E. %uelli" M', (nc., Respondent#Appellee& andNLRC Case No. RN- I-!"#''-%#-T entitled, )Amancio Manuel, Complainant#Appellant, v. $.E. %uelli" M', (nc., Respondent#Appellee,)(hich dismissed the appeal of petitioners herein and in effect affirmed the decision of the Labor )rbiter ordering private respondent to

pay petitioners separation pay e*+ivalent to their one month salary ecl+sive of commissions, allo(ances, etc. for every year ofservice.

The antecedent facts are as follo(s/

0rivate respondent 1.2. 3+ellig 4, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 3+ellig filed (ith the 5epartment of Labor Regional 6ffice No. $an application seeking clearance to terminate the services of petitioners 7ose 8ongco, Romeo Cipres, and )mancio 4an+elhereinafter referred to as petitioners allegedly on the gro+nd of retrenchment d+e to financial losses. This application (as seasonablyopposed by petitioners alleging that the company is not s+ffering from any losses. They alleged f+rther that they are being dismissedbeca+se of their membership in the +nion. )t the last hearing of the case, ho(ever, petitioners manifested that they are no longercontesting their dismissal. The parties then agreed that the sole iss+e to be resolved is the basis of the separation pay d+e topetitioners. 0etitioners, (ho (ere in the sales force of 3+ellig received monthly salaries of at least 0$",""". In addition, they receivedcommissions for every sale they made.

The collective Bargaining )greement entered into bet(een 3+ellig and 1.2. 3+ellig 2mployees )ssociation, of (hich petitioners aremembers, contains the follo(ing provision p. %9, Rollo/

)RTICL2 :I ; Retirement years of service shall be deemed e*+ivalent to total service credits, a fraction of atleast si months being considered one year, incl+ding probationary employment. 2mphasis s+pplied

6n the other hand, )rticle !#$ of the Labor Code then prevailing provides/

)rt. !#$. Reduction of personnel. ; The termination of employment of any employee d+e to the installation of laborsaving-devices, red+ndancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, and other similar ca+ses, shall entitle the employeeaffected thereby to separationpa*. In case of termination d+e to the installation of labor-saving devices orred+ndancy, the separation pay shall be e*+ivalent to one 9 monthpa*or to at least one 9 monthpa* for everyyear of service, (hichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and other similar ca+ses, theseparation pay shall be e*+ivalent to one 9 month pay or at least one-half 9?! month pay for every year of service,(hichever is higher. ) fraction of at least si @ months shall be considered one 9 (hole year. 2mphasis s+pplied

In addition, 8ections Ab and 9", R+le 9, Book I of the R+les Implementing the Labor Code provide/


2/14

8ec. Ab. here the termination of employment is d+e to retrechment initiated by the employer to prevent losses orother similar ca+ses, or (here the employee s+ffers from a disease and his contin+ed employment is prohibited byla( or is pre+dicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, the employee shall be entitled to terminationpay e*+ivalent at least to his one month salary, or to one-half monthpa*for every year of service, (hichever ishigher, a fraction of at least si @ months being considered as one (hole year.

8ec. 9". Basis of termination pa*. ; The comp+tation of the termination pay of an employee as provided herein shallbe based on his latest salary rate, +nless the same (as red+ced by the employer to defeat the intention of the Code,

in (hich case the basis of comp+tation shall be the rate before its ded+ction. 2mphasis s+pplied

6n 7+ne !@,9A%#, the Labor )rbiter rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of (hich reads p. %#, Rollo/

R2806N8I2 T6 TD2 16R2


3/14

any attempt to make it clearer is vain labor and tends only to obsc+rity. Do( ever, it may be arg+ed that if e correlate )rticle A%f (ith)rticle :I of the Collective Bargaining )greement, )rticle !#$ of the Labor Code and 8ections Ab and 9" of the Implementing R+les,there appears to be an ambig+ity. In this regard, the Labor )rbiter rationaliEed his decision in this manner pp. %$-%@, Rollo/

The definition of =(age= provided in )rticle A@ sic of the Code can be correctly be sic stated as a general definition.It is =(age = in its generic sense. ) caref+l per+sal of the same does not sho( any indication that commission is part ofsalary. e can say that commission by itself may be considered a (age. This is not something novel for it cannot begainsaid that certain types of employees like agents, field personnel and salesmen do not earn any reg+lar daily,(eekly or monthly salaries, b+t rely mainly on commission earned.

Gpon the other hand, the provisions of 8ection 9", R+le 9, Book I of the implementing r+les in con+nction (ith)rticles !%F and !%$ sic of the Code specifically states that the basis of the termination pay d+e to one (ho isso+ght to be legally separated from the service is =his latest salary rates.

.

2ven )rticles !%F and !%$ sic invariably +se =monthly pay or monthly salary=.

The above terms fo+nd in those )rticles and the partic+lar R+les (ere intentionally +sed to epress the intent of theframers of the la( that for p+rposes of separation pay they mean to be specifically referring to salary only.

.... 2ach partic+lar benefit provided in the Code and other 5ecrees on Labor has its o(n pec+larities and n+ancesand sho+ld be interpreted in that light. Th+s, for a specific provision, a specific meaning is attached to simplify matters

that may arise there from. The general g+idelines in sic the formation of specific r+les for partic+lar p+rpose. Th+s,that (hat sho+ld be controlling in matters concerning termination pay sho+ld be the specific provisions of both BookI of the Code and the R+les. )t any rate, settled is the r+le that in matters of conflict bet(een the general provisionof la( and that of a partic+lar- or specific provision, the latter sho+ld prevail.

6n its part, the NLRC r+led p. 99", Rollo/

1rom the afore*+oted provisions of the la( and the implementing r+les, it co+ld be ded+ced that (age is +sed in itsgeneric sense and obvio+sly refers to the basic (age rate to be ascertained on a time, task, piece or commissionbasis or other method of calc+lating the same. It does not, ho(ever, mean that commission, allo(ances or analogo+sincome necessarily forms part of the employee=s salary beca+se to do so (o+ld lead to anomalies sic, if not abs+rd,constr+ction of the (ord &salary.& 1or (hat (ill prevent the employee from insisting that emergency living allo(ance,9Fth month pay, overtime, and premi+m pay, and other fringe benefits sho+ld be added to the comp+tation of theirseparation pay. This sit+ation, to o+r mind, is not the real intent of the Code and its r+les.

e r+le other(ise. The ambig+ity bet(een )rticle A%f, (hich defines the term =(age= and )rticle :I of the Collective Bargaining)greement, )rticle !#$ of the Labor Code and 8ections Ab and 9" of the Implementing R+les, (hich mention the terms &pay& and&salary&, is more apparent than real. Broadly, the (ord &salary& means a recompense or consideration made to a person for his pains orind+stry in another man=s b+siness. hether it be derived from &salari+m,& or more fancif+lly from &sal,& the pay of the Roman soldier, itcarries (ith it the f+ndamental idea of compensation for services rendered. Indeed, there is eminent a+thority for holding that the (ords&(ages& and &salary& are in essence synonymo+s ords and 0hrases, ol. F# 0ermanent 2dition, p. $$ citing Dopkins vs. Crom(ell,#' N.H.8. #FA,#$9,#A )pp. 5iv. $#9> F# )m. 7+r. $A@. &8alary,& the etymology of (hich is the Latin (ord &salari+m,& is often +sedinterchangeably (ith &(age&, the etymology of (hich is the 4iddle 2nglish (ord &(agen&. Both (ords generally refer to one and thesame meaning, that is, a re(ard or recompense for services performed. Like(ise, &pay& is the synonym of &(ages& and &salary& Black=sLa( 5ictionary, 'th 2d.. Inasm+ch as the (ords &(ages&, &pay& and &salary& have the same meaning, and commission is incl+ded inthe definition of &(age&, the logical concl+sion, therefore, is, in the comp+tation of the separation pay of petitioners, their salary basesho+ld incl+de also their earned sales commissions.

The afore*+oted provisions are not the only consideration for deciding the petition in favor of the petitioners.

e agree (ith the 8olicitor


4/14

employment. ill this not be abs+rd This narro( interpretation is not in accord (ith the liberal spirit of o+r labor la(s and consideringthe p+rpose of separation pay (hich is, to alleviate the diffic+lties (hich confront a dismissed employee thro(n the the streets to facethe harsh necessities of life.

)dditionally, in !oriano v. +LRC, et al., supra, in resolving the iss+e of the salary base that sho+ld be +sed in comp+ting the separationpay, e held that/

The commissions also claimed by petitioner =override commission= pl+s =net deposit incentive= are not properlyincl+dible in s+ch base fig+re since s+ch commissions m+st be earned by act+al market transactions attrib+table topetitioner.

)pplying this by analogy, since the commissions in the present case (ere earned by act+al market transactions attrib+table topetitioners, these sho+ld be incl+ded in their separation pay. In the comp+tation thereof, (hat sho+ld be taken into acco+nt is theaverage commissions earned d+ring their last year of employment.

The final consideration is, in carrying o+t and interpreting the Labor Code=s provisions and its implementing reg+lations, the(orkingman=s (elfare sho+ld be the primordial and paramo+nt consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and s+bstanceto the liberal and compassionate spirit of the la( as provided for in )rticle $ of the Labor Code (hich states that &all do+bts in theimplementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code incl+ding its implementing r+les and reg+lations shall be resolvedin favor of labor& )bella v. NLRC, 4anila 2lectric Company v. NLRC, et al., 7that on 6ctober #, 9A#", as a res+lt of the aforementioned termination, the 0hilippine Transport and


5/14

that on 6ctober 9$,9A#", the 0T that on November $, 9A#", the45C filed (ith the B+rea+ of Labor Relations a motion to declare the strike illegal and restrain the (orkers from contin+ing the strike>that on that same day and several days thereafter the 45C filed applications for clearance to terminate the employment of A" of thestriking (orkers, (hom it had mean(hile preventively s+spended> that of the said (orkers, %$ (ere proect employees +nder contract(ith the 45C (ith fied terms of employment> and that on )+g+st F9, 9A#!, Labor )rbiter )polinar L. 8evilla rendered a decision 1denying the applications for clearance filed by the 45C and directing it to reinstate the individ+al complainants (ith t(o months back(ages each.

This is the decision modified by the NLRC

2

(hich is no( fa+lted by the petitioners for grave ab+se of discretion. The contention is thatthe p+blic respondent acted arbitrarily and erroneo+sly in r+ling that/ a the motion for reconsideration (as filed o+t of time> b the strike(as illegal> and c the separation of the proect employees (as +stified.

Daving considered the iss+es and the arg+ments of the parties in their respective pleadings, incl+ding the petitioners= e partemotionfor early resol+tion of this case, the Co+rt makes the findings that follo(.

6n the first iss+e, (e note that the r+le on motions for reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC is no( fo+nd in R+le : of theRevised R+les of the NLRC, providing th+s/

8ection A. Motions for reconsideration / 4otions for reconsideration of any order, resol+tion or decision of theCommission shall not be entertained ecept (hen based on palpable or patent errors, provided that the motion is+nder oath and filed (ithin ten I " calendar days from receipt of the order, resol+tion or decision, (ith proof ofservice that a copy of the same has been f+rnished, (ithin the aforesaid reglementary period, the adverse party and

provided f+rther, that only one s+ch motion shall be entertained.

8+bect to the provisions of 8ection F, R+le I: of these R+les, motions for reconsideration of an order, resol+tion ordecision of a 5ivision shall be resolved by the 5ivision of origin.

Do(ever, this section (as prom+lgated only on November ', 9A#@, and became effective only on November !A, 9A#@, after there*+ired p+blication. 3It (as therefore not yet in force (hen the re*+ired resol+tion in the present case (as rendered in 9A#$.

)pparently agreeing that the reglementary period then (as fifteen days, the 8olicitor


6/14

proect has already been completed, it (o+ld be +n+st to re*+ire the employer to maintain them in the payroll (hile they are doingabsol+tely nothing ecept (aiting +ntil another proect is beg+n, if at all. In effect, these stand-by (orkers (o+ld be enoying the stat+sof privileged retainers, collecting payment for (ork not done, to be disb+rsed by the employer from profits not earned. This is not fair byany standard and can only lead to a coddling of labor at the epense of management.

e believe, ho(ever, that this r+le is not applicable in the case at bar, and for - good reason. The record sho(s that altho+gh thecontracts of the proect (orkers had indeed epired, the proect itself (as still on-going and so contin+ed to re*+ire the (orkers=services for its completion. There is no sho(ing that s+ch services (ere +nsatisfactory to +stify their termination. This is not evenalleged by the private respondent. 6ne can therefore only (onder (hy, in vie( of these circ+mstances, the contract (orkers (ere notretained to finish the proect they had beg+n and (ere still (orking on. This had been done in past proects. This arrangement had

consistently been follo(ed before, (hich acco+nts for the long years of service many of the (orkers had (ith the 45C.

It is obvio+s that the real reason for the termination of their services-(hich, to repeat, (ere still needed-(as the complaint the proect(orkers had filed and their participation in the strike against the private respondent. These (ere the acts that rendered thempersonanon "ratato the management. Their services (ere discontin+ed by the 45C not beca+se of the epiration of their contracts, (hich hadnot prevented their retention or rehiring before as long as the proect they (ere (orking on had not yet been completed. The realp+rpose of the 45C (as to retaliate against the (orkers, to p+nish them for their defiance by replacing them (ith more tractableemployees.

)lso note(orthy in this connection is 0olicy Instr+ction No. !" of the 5epartment of Labor, providing that &proect employees are notentitled to separation pay if they are terminated as a res+lt of the completion of the proect or any phase thereof in (hich they areemployed, regardless of the proects in (hich they had been employed by a partic+lar constr+ction company.& ))ffirmatively p+t, andinterpreting it in the most liberal (ay to favor the (orking class, the r+le (o+ld entitle proect employees to separation pay if the proectsthey are (orking on have not yet been completed (hen their services are terminated. )nd this sho+ld be tr+e even if their contracts

have epired, on the theory that s+ch contracts (o+ld have been rene(ed any(ay beca+se their services (ere still needed.

)pplying this r+le, (e hold that the proect (orkers in the case at bar, (ho (ere separated even before the completion of the proect atthe Ne( )labang illage and not really for the reason that their contracts had epired, are entitled to separation pay. e make thisdisposition instead of ordering their reinstatement as it may be ass+med that the said proect has been completed by this time.Considering the (orkers to have been separated (itho+t valid ca+se, (e shall comp+te their separation pay at the rate of one monthfor every year of service of each dismissed employee, +p to the time of the completion of the proect. (e feel this is the most e*+itable(ay to treat their claim in light of their cavalier dismissal by the private respondent despite their long period of satisfactory service (ithit.

It is the policy of the Constit+tion to afford protection to labor in recognition of its role in the improvement of o+r (elfare and thestrengthening of o+r democracy. )n eploited (orking class is a discontented (orking class. It is a treadmill to progress and a threat tofreedom. Jno(ing this, (e m+st eert all effort to dignify the lot of the employee, elevating him to the same plane as his employer, thatthey may better (ork together as e*+al partners in the *+est for a better life. This is a symbiotic relationship (e m+st maintain if s+ch a*+est is to s+cceed.

D2R216R2, the appealed decision of the NLRC is )11IR425 b+t (ith the modification that the contract (orkers are herebydeclared to have been illegally separated before the epiration of the proect they (ere (orking on and so are entitled to separation paye*+ivalent to one month salary for every year of service. No costs.

86 6R52R25.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. )33 Oco+r 1(, 19((

EASERN S:IPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,vs.P:ILIPPINE O%ERSEAS EMPLO;MEN A$MINISRAION "POEA&, MINISER O# LA!OR AN$ EMPLO;MEN, :EARINGO##ICER A!$UL !ASAR and A:LEEN $. SACO, respondents.

imenea, Dala & %ara"oza La4 5ffice for petitioner.T2e !olicitor 6eneral for public respondent.Dizon La4 5ffice for respondent 7at2leen D. !aco.


7/14

CRU', J.:

The private respondent in this case (as a(arded the s+m of 09A!,"""."" by the 0hilippine 6verseas 2mployment )dministration062) for the death of her h+sband. The decision is challenged by the petitioner on the principal gro+nd that the 062) had no

+risdiction over the case as the h+sband (as not an overseas (orker.

italiano 8aco (as Chief 6fficer of the 4? 2astern 0olaris (hen he (as killed in an accident in Tokyo, 7apan, 4arch 9', 9A#'. Dis(ido( s+ed for damages +nder 2ec+tive 6rder No. %A% and 4emorand+m Circ+lar No. ! of the 062). The petitioner, as o(ner of thevessel, arg+ed that the complaint (as cogniEable not by the 062) b+t by the 8ocial 8ec+rity 8ystem and sho+ld have been filedagainst the 8tate Ins+rance 1+nd. The 062) nevertheless ass+med +risdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties

r+led in favor of the complainant. The a(ard consisted of 09#","""."" as death benefits and 09!,"""."" for b+rial epenses.

The petitioner immediately came to this Co+rt, prompting the 8olicitor


8/14

so as re*+ired by the circ+lar, (hich specifically declared that &all parties to the employment of any 1ilipino seamen on board anyocean-going vessel are advised to adopt and +se this employment contract effective "9 1ebr+ary 9A#$ and to desist from +sing anyother format of employment contract effective that date.& In the second place, even if it had not done so, the provisions of the saidcirc+lar are nevertheless deemed (ritten into the contract (ith 8aco as a post+late of the police po(er of the 8tate. 11

B+t the petitioner *+estions the validity of 4emorand+m Circ+lar No. ! itself as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislativepo(er. It contends that no a+thority had been given the 062) to prom+lgate the said reg+lation> and even (ith s+ch a+thoriEation, thereg+lation represents an eercise of legislative discretion (hich, +nder the principle, is not s+bect to delegation.

The a+thority to iss+e the said reg+lation is clearly provided in 8ection $a of 2ec+tive 6rder No. %A%, reading as follo(s/

... The governing Board of the )dministration 062), as here+nder provided shall prom+lgate the necessary r+lesand reg+lations to govern the eercise of the ad+dicatory f+nctions of the )dministration 062).

8imilar a+thoriEation had been granted the National 8eamen Board, (hich, as earlier observed, had itself prescribed a standardshipping contract s+bstantially the same as the format adopted by the 062).

The second challenge is more serio+s as it is tr+e that legislative discretion as to the s+bstantive contents of the la( cannot bedelegated. hat can be delegated is the discretion to determine 2o4the la( may be enforced, not 42atthe la( shall be. Theascertainment of the latter s+bect is a prerogative of the legislat+re. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or s+rrendered by thelegislat+re to the delegate. Th+s, in Hnot v. Intermediate )pellate Co+rt 12(hich ann+lled 2ec+tive 6rder No. @!@, this Co+rt held/

e also mark, on top of all this, the *+estionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property as prescribed

in the *+estioned eec+tive order. It is there a+thoriEed that the seiEed property shall be distrib+ted to charitableinstit+tions and other similar instit+tions as the Chairman of the National 4eat Inspection Commission ma* see fit, inthe case of carabaos.= Italics s+pplied. The phrase &ma* see fit& is an etremely genero+s and dangero+s condition,if condition it is. It is laden (ith perilo+s opport+nities for partiality and ab+se, and even corr+ption. 6ne searches invain for the +s+al standard and the reasonable g+idelines, or better still, the limitations that the officers m+st observe(hen they make their distrib+tion. There is none. Their options are apparently bo+ndless. ho shall be the fort+natebeneficiaries of their generosity and by (hat criteria shall they be chosen 6nly the officers named can s+pply theans(er, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their o(n ecl+sive discretion. 5efinitely,there is here a =roving commission a (ide and s(eeping a+thority that is not canaliEed (ithin banks that keep it fromoverflo(ing,= in short a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative po(ers.

There are t(o accepted tests to determine (hether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative po(er, viz, the completeness test andthe s+fficient standard test. Gnder the first test, the la( m+st be complete in all its terms and conditions (hen it leaves the legislat+res+ch that (hen it reaches the delegate the only thing he (ill have to do is enforce it. 13Gnder the s+fficient standard test, there m+st beade*+ate g+idelines or stations in the la( to map o+t the bo+ndaries of the delegate=s a+thority and prevent the delegation from r+nning

riot. 18

Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative a+thority to the delegate, (ho is not allo(ed to step into the shoesof the legislat+re and eercise a po(er essentially legislative.

The principle of non-delegation of po(ers is applicable to all the three maor po(ers of the


9/14

4emorand+m Circ+lar No. ! is one s+ch administrative reg+lation. The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in asignificant n+mber of the cases (itho+t challenge by the employer. The po(er of the 062) and before it the National 8eamen Boardin re*+iring the model contract is not +nlimited as there is a s+fficient standard g+iding the delegate in the eercise of the said a+thority.That standard is discoverable in the eec+tive order itself (hich, in creating the 0hilippine 6verseas 2mployment )dministration,mandated it to protect the rights of overseas 1ilipino (orkers to &fair and e*+itable employment practices.&

0arenthetically, it is recalled that this Co+rt has accepted as s+fficient standards &0+blic interest& in eople v. Rosent2al 15&+stice ande*+ity& inAntamo3 6old $ields v. C(R1&p+blic convenience and (elfare& in Calalan" v. 8illiams 1)and &simplicity, economy andefficiency& in Cervantes v. Auditor 6eneral, 1(to mention only a fe( cases. In the Gnited 8tates, the &sense and eperience of men& (asaccepted in Mutual $ilm Corp. v. (ndustrial Commission, 19and &national sec+rity& in 9iraba*as2i v. :nited !tates. 20

It is not denied that the private respondent has been receiving a monthly death benefit pension of 0'9$.$! since 4arch 9A#' and thatshe (as also paid a 09,"""."" f+neral benefit by the 8ocial 8ec+rity 8ystem. In addition, as already observed, she also received a0',"""."" b+rial grat+ity from the elfare 1+nd for 6verseas orkers. These payments (ill not precl+de allo(ance of the privaterespondent=s claim against the petitioner beca+se it is specifically reserved in the standard contract of employment for 1ilipino seamen+nder 4emorand+m Circ+lar No. !, 8eries of 9A#$, that;

8ection C. Compensation and Benefits.;

9. In case of death of the seamen d+ring the term of his Contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the amo+nof/

a. 0!!","""."" for master and chief engineers

b. 09#","""."" for other officers, incl+ding radio operators and master electrician

c. 0 9F","""."" for ratings.

!. It is +nderstood and agreed that the benefits mentioned above shall be separate and distinct from, and (ill be inaddition to (hatever benefits (hich the seaman is entitled to +nder 0hilippine la(s. ...

F. ...

c. If the remains of the seaman is b+ried in the 0hilippines, the o(ners shall pay the beneficiaries othe seaman an amo+nt not eceeding 09#,"""."" for b+rial epenses.

The +nderscored portion is merely a reiteration of 4emorand+m Circ+lar No. !!, iss+ed by the National 8eamen Board on 7+ly9!,9A%@, providing an follo(s/

(ncome Benefits under t2is Rule !2all be Considered Additional Benefits./

)ll compensation benefits +nder Title II, Book 1o+r of the Labor Code of the 0hilippines 2mployees Compensationand 8tate Ins+rance 1+nd shall be granted, in addition to (hatever benefits, grat+ities or allo(ances that theseaman or his beneficiaries may be entitled to +nder the employment contract approved by the N8B. If applicable, allbenefits +nder the 8ocial 8ec+rity La( and the 0hilippine 4edicare La( shall be enoyed by the seaman or hisbeneficiaries in accordance (ith s+ch la(s.

The above provisions are manifestations of the concern of the 8tate for the (orking class, consistently (ith the social +stice policy andthe specific provisions in the Constit+tion for the protection of the (orking class and the promotion of its interest.

6ne last challenge of the petitioner m+st be dealt (ith to close t case. Its arg+ment that it has been denied d+e process beca+se thesame 062) that iss+ed 4emorand+m Circ+lar No. ! has also s+stained and applied it is an +ninformed criticism of administrative la(itself. )dministrative agencies are vested (ith t(o basic po(ers, the *+asi-legislative and the *+asi-+dicial. The first enables them toprom+lgate implementing r+les and reg+lations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply s+ch reg+lations. 2amplesabo+nd/ the B+rea+ of Internal Reven+e ad+dicates on its o(n reven+e reg+lations, the Central Bank on its o(n circ+lars, the8ec+rities and 2change Commission on its o(n r+les, as so too do the 0hilippine 0atent 6ffice and the ideogram Reg+latory Boardand the Civil )erona+tics )dministration and the 5epartment of Nat+ral Reso+rces and so on ad infinitumon their respectiveadministrative reg+lations. 8+ch an arrangement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern governments and cannot be consideredviolative of d+e process as long as the cardinal rights laid do(n by 7+stice La+rel in the landmark case ofAn" Tiba* v. Court of(ndustrial Relations 21are observed.

hatever do+bts may still remain regarding the rights of the parties in this case are resolved in favor of the private respondent, in line(ith the epress mandate of the Labor Code and the principle that those (ith less in life sho+ld have more in la(.


10/14

hen the conflicting interests of labor and capital are (eighed on the scales of social +stice, the heavier infl+ence of the latter m+st beco+nter-balanced by the sympathy and compassion the la( m+st accord the +nderprivileged (orker. This is only fair if he is to be giventhe opport+nity and the right to assert and defend his ca+se not as a s+bordinate b+t as a peer of management, (ith (hich he cannegotiate on even plane. Labor is not a mere employee of capital b+t its active and e*+al partner.

D2R216R2, the petition is 5I84I8825, (ith costs against the petitioner. The temporary restraining order dated 5ecember 9", 9A#@is hereby LI1T25. It is so ordered.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21849 December 11, 1967

LOURDES VD. DE MGLON,petitioner!s"

T!E "OR#MEN$S COMPENST%ON COMM%SS%ON &'( T!E NT%ONL S!%P)RD ND STEEL CORPORT%ON *NSSCO+,

respon#ents"

Pablo B. Badong and Associates for petitioner.P. C. Villavieja and P. E. Villanueva for respondent WCC.

Eduardo S. Rodriguez for respondent NASSC.

ENGON, .P., J.:

Since April $ $%&' (or)e Ma)alona *or+e# for NASSCO,Ili)an Steel Mills as batter-.an then as electrician,helper an# finall- as pulpit operator

*ith a *ee+l- salar- of P/0"'1 *ith hours of *or+ at 2311 A"M",$/3 11 Noon $311 P"M",'311 P"M" As a batter-.an he fille# 4ars of #r- cells *ith

h-#rochloric aci# insi#e a roo. that *as al*a-s #a.p because of the sprin+lin) of *ater o!er the #r- cells to pre!ent the aci# fro. flo*in)" Aselectrician,helper he helpe# clean electric .otors re*oun# coils an# #i# other *or+ in the electric shop" In his last #esi)nation as pulpit operator he

*or+e# in the rollin) .ill #epart.ent *hich *as hot operate# an electric s*itch an# cau)ht steel bars passin) throu)h at a finish line"

On Februar- $0 $%&0 Ma)alona *ent on sic+ lea!e to last up to March $1 $%&0" 5e *as not able to report for *or+ after his lea!e e6pire#" OnMa- $ $%&0 he *as a#.itte# in Ri!ersi#e 5ospital Bacolo# Cit- *here he #ie# on Ma- $2 of that -ear of #uo#enal ulcer *ith partial obstruction

at the p-loric en# of the sto.ach se!ere ane.ia *ith +i#ne- co.plications"

On (ul- /& $%&0 his *i#o* 7our#es Ma)alona file# a clai. for co.pensation un#er the 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Act" Respon#ent co.pan- #i#not contro!ert the clai." The hearin) officer of the Re)ional Office Depart.ent of 7abor a*ar#e# the *i#o* an# her chil# P/2'&"01 as #eath

benefits P/11"11 as burial e6penses P$0'&"01 as .e#ical e6penses an# P$:&"/; as attorne-9s fees" The a*ar# *as base# on the )roun# that the

con#itions of *or+ < inhalation of )as fu.es incessant heat irre)ular eatin) habits < .i)ht ha!e cause# #uo#enal ulcer in line *ith the principleof liberal construction of labor la*s in fa!or of the laborer"

On re!ie* before the 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Co..ission in Manila clai.ant9s counsel file# a =Motion to Dis.iss the Appeal or Repl- to Petition

for Re!ie*= alle)in) as it #i# before the hearin) officer that the case shoul# be #is.isse# because NASSCO ha# not file# an- *ritten notice ofcontro!ersion of the clai." Since .e#ical consi#erations *ere in!ol!e# 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Co..issioner Cesareo Pere> referre# the case to

the E!aluation Di!ision of the Bureau of 8or+.en9s Co.pensation for a .e#ical opinion" Dr" El#a M" Monte.a-or Senior Co.pensation Ratin)

Me#ical Officer therein in her report #ate# Februar- /1 $%0: ?appro!e# b- the Chief of the E!aluation Di!ision@ state# that althou)h the e6actcause of #uo#enal ulcer is still un+no*n the con#itions of his *or+ in the absence of sufficient proof that the #ecease# .isse# or ha# irre)ular

.eals ha# no causal relationship *ith the ail.ent causin) his #eath" 8ithout resol!in) the .otion to #is.iss Co..issioner Pere> re!erse# the

#ecision of the hearin) officer absol!e# NASSCO an# rule# that #uo#enal ulcer is not co.pensable *ithout an- sho*in) that there *as an- causalconnection bet*een the ulcer an# the nature of the *or+ such as a))ra!ation of the illness throu)h an acci#ent o!er e6ertion an# the li+e"

After the Co..ission en banc#enie# her .otion for reconsi#eration clai.ant appeale# to s b- *a- of certiorari raisin) the follo*in) uestions

for #eter.ination3

$" Coul# the NASSCO ha!e le)all- petitione# for re!ie* of the #ecision of the hearin) officer consi#erin) that it ha# not contro!erte# the clai.

/" 8as the a#.ission b- Co..issioner Pere> of the .e#ical opinion of a Senior Co.pensation Ratin) Officer of the Co..ission proper

:" 8as there nee# for clai.ant to sho* causal connection bet*een the #eath of the e.plo-ee an# the nature of his *or+


11/14

As the hearin) officer foun# NASSCO faile# to contro!ert the clai." It is NASSCO9s position that )rantin) there *as no contro!ersion the

acceptance b- the hearin) officer of NASSCO9s e!i#ence *as tanta.ount to reinstate.ent of its ri)ht to contro!ert citin) Section ' of Rule $' of the

Rules of the 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Co..ission" 5o*e!er to reinstate one9s ri)ht to contro!ert the section reuires a petition un#er oath b- thee.plo-er specif-in) the reason for its failure to contro!ert"itc!alfIn the case at bar there *as no such petition" Mere acceptance b- the hearin)

officer of the e!i#ence presente# #i# not .ean the reinstate.ent of the ri)ht to contro!ert" The la* itself pro!i#es that onl- the Co..issioner .a-

reinstate the ri)ht to contro!ert" ?See Sec" '& par" / 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Act A)ustin !" 8CC 7,$%%&2 Sept" /% $%0'@"la"p#il.netB- failin)to present a *ritten contro!ersion of the clai. the e.plo-er NASSCO renounce# its ri)ht to challen)e the clai." An# this .eans that all non,

4uris#ictional #efenses such as non,co.pensabilit- of the illness prescription etc" are barre#"$

Respon#ent NASSCO in its ans*er before s alle)es that the clai. ha# prescribe# for it alle)e#l- recei!e# notice of the clai. for co.pensation

onl- on (ul- /& $%0/ ?p" 0' of the Recor#@"itc!alfThe hearin) officer ho*e!er foun# that the recor#s sho* the clai. to ha!e been recei!e# (ul- /&$%&0 ?Recor# p" ::@" Further.ore it *as the co.pan- ph-sician *ho #ia)nose# the e.plo-ee9s illness ?pp" 2: of T"s"n" uote# in petition p" // of

Recor#@"The *ife testifie# un#er oath that she sent a tele)ra. to NASSCO ri)ht after the #eath of her husban# an# later file# her clai. *ith its.ana)er" These .atters *ere not touche# on b- the re!ie*in) co..issioner or the Co..ission en bancan# shoul# stan#" The *i#o*9s acts after the

#eath of her husban# .a- be consi#ere# as substantial co.pliance *ith the reuire# notice of clai. for co.pensation" In a case 8e accepte# assubstantial co.pliance *ith Section /' of the Act an oral #e.an# for co.pensation har#l- a .onth after la-,off .a+in) of little conseuence a

subseuent *ritten clai. file# .uch later"/An# besi#es as state# for lac+ of proper contro!ersion the #efense of prescription is li+e*ise barre#"

8ith re)ar# to the a#.issibilit- of the .e#ical opinion report of Dr" Monte.a-or sai# report shoul# not ha!e been a#.itte# because *hile technical

rules of proce#ure nee# not be follo*e# b- the Co..ission:no e!i#ence shoul# be ta+en into account *here the a#!erse part- *as not )i!en theopportunit- to ob4ect to its a#.issibilit-"'This is soun# especiall- *here on such a#.itte# report *as principall- base# the #ecision of re!ersal"

Base# on the .e#ical report the 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Co..issioner rule# that the clai.ant .ust first establish a causal lin+ bet*een the nature

of the e.plo-.ent an# the cause of #eath of Ma)alona before clai.ant can be co.pensate#" This is a re!ersible error" The e.plo-ee ha# ob!iousl-

been sic+" 5is inabilit- to report sac+ to *or+ *hen his sic+ lea!e e6pire# #i# not se!er the e.plo-er,e.plo-ee relationship" NASSCO ne!er clai.e#that it ha# ter.inate# his e.plo-.ent" NASSCO clai.e# that he *as =absent *ithout lea!e= ?pp" :0,:; of T"s"n" uote# in respon#ent9s ans*er pp"

0;,0% of the Recor#@"la"p#il.netIt is no* unuestionable that once the illness super!ene# at the ti.e of the e.plo-.ent there is a rebuttablepresu.ption that such illness arose out of the e.plo-.ent or *as at least a))ra!ate# b- such e.plo-.ent" The clai.ant is relie!e# fro. the bur#en

of pro!in) causation once the illness or the in4ur- is sho*n to ha!e arisen in the course of e.plo-.ent"&Thus the precise .e#ical cause of the illness

is not le)all- si)nificant as lon) as the illness super!ene# in the course of the e.plo-.ent" The presu.ption of causation or a))ra!ation thenapplies" The function of a presu.ption is precisel- to #ispense *ith the nee# for proof" The bur#en to o!erthro* the presu.ption an# to #isconnect

b- substantial e!i#ence the in4ur- or sic+ness fro. e.plo-.ent is lai# b- the statute at the #oor of the e.plo-er"0In the case at bar no substantiale!i#ence e6ists to o!erco.e sai# presu.ption" An# e!en if the .e#ical report is consi#ere# since the report itself a#.its that the real cause of

#uo#enal ulcer is un+no*n the presu.ption establishe# b- la* *oul# still appl- as a)ainst a .ere opinion on the non,causal connection bet*een

#uo#enal ulcer an# the nature of Ma)alona9s e.plo-.ent"la"p#il.net

85EREFORE the appeale# resolution of the 8or+.en9s Co.pensation Co..ission en bancan# the Co..issioner9s #ecision are hereb- re!erse#an# the a*ar# of the hearin) officer )rantin) clai.ant P/2'&"01 as #eath benefits P/11"11 as burial e6penses P$0'&"01 as .e#ical e6penses an#

P$:;"/& as attorne-9s fees is affir.e#" No costs" So or#ere#"

G.R. No. L-9878, U.S. /. Mo0'&


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

DECISION

Dece.ber /' $%$'

"R" No" 7,%;2;T!E UN%TED STTES plaintiff,appellee

!s"

RN# TUPS% MOL%N #efen#ant,appellant"

$ulio Borbon Villa%or for appellant. ffice of t#e Solicitor!&eneral Corpus for appellee.

O!NSON, J.3


12/14

On the 0th #a- of Februar- $%$' the prosecutin) attorne- of the Pro!ince of Ilocos Sur file# a co.plaint a)ainst the #efen#ant char)in) hi. *ith

the cri.e of per4ur- alle)e# to ha!e been co..itte# as follo*s3

The sai# Fran+ Tupasi Molina the abo!e,na.e# #efen#ant #i# on Septe.ber $1 $%$/ in the .unicipalit- of Ta-u. of the Pro!ince of Ilocos Sur PI" for the purpose of )ainin) a#.ission as in fact he #i# o*in) to the #eceit he practice# as *ill be hereinafter relate# to the e6a.inations for the

.unicipal police ser!ice in the Pro!ince of Ilocos Sur *hich *ere hel# in the .unicipalit- of Vi)an sai# pro!ince on or about (anuar- $; $%$:

*illfull- unla*full- an# cri.inall- ta+e a false oath b- affir.in) an# assertin) in an oath that he +ne* to be false in an e6a.ination application*hich he hi.self fille# out an# si)ne# that prior to the sai# #ate to *it Septe.ber $1 $%$/ he ha# ne!er been in#icte# trie# or sentence# for the

!iolation of an- la* or#inance or re)ulation in an- court *hen he +ne* at the ti.e he too+ that oath an# si)ne# his e6a.ination application as he

+no*s at the present ti.e that he ha# been t*ice in#icte# for #isturbin) the public peace an# for injurias graves an# sentence# to pa- a fine an#

un#er)o i.prison.ent therefor b- the 4ustice of the peace court of Ta-u. an# the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur"

The #efen#ant .a#e the false #eclaration pre!iousl- .entione# after he ha# s*orn before 7ucas Ma)no notar- public authori>e# b- la* to

a#.inister oaths that he *oul# state the truth an# sai# false #eclaration .a#e un#er the oath ta+en b- the #efen#ant as abo!e state# concerne# afact of such i.portance that *ithout it he *oul# not ha!e been a#.itte# to sai# e6a.inations prescribe# for the .unicipal police ser!ice" In !iolation

of the la*" ?Sec" :Act No" $0%2"@

After hearin) the e!i#ence a##uce# #urin) the trial of the cause the 5onorable Francisco Santa.aria 4u#)e foun# the #efen#ant )uilt- of the cri.echar)e# an# sentence# hi. to be i.prisone# for a perio# of t*o .onths an# to pa- a fine of P$11 in case of insol!enc- to suffer subsi#iar-

i.prison.ent in accor#ance *ith the pro!isions of the la* an# to pa- the costs" The #efen#ant *as further sentence# to be #isualifie# fro. hol#in)

an- public office or fro. )i!in) testi.on- in an- court in the Philippine Islan#s until such ti.e as the sentence a)ainst hi. is re!erse#" Fro. thatsentence the #efen#ant appeale# to this court an# .a#e the follo*in) assi)n.ents of error3

$" The trial court erre# in hol#in) section : ofAct No" $0%2 to be applicable in this case"

/" The trial court .anifestl- erre# in sentencin) the appellant for !iolation of section : of Act No" $0%2 *hen the prosecution #i# not present an-

e!i#ence #e.onstratin) that he ha# *illfull- an# corruptl- s*orn or ta+en an oath"

:" The trial court erre# in not sustainin) the #efense set up b- the appellant Tupasi *ith reference to the construction he place# upon the fifth uestion

of E6hibit A of the prosecution"

'" The trial court erre# also in hol#in) that the *or#s =*hich he #oes not belie!e to be true= use# in Act No" $0%2are eui!alent to the ter.

=+no*in)l-= use# in section :$ ofAct No" $20$"

&" The trial court erre# in not acuittin) the #efen#ant"

It appears fro. the recor# that on the $1th #a- of Septe.ber $%$/ the #efen#ant si)ne# a petition to be per.itte# to ta+e the e6a.ination for the

position of .unicipal police.an" Sai# petition *as si)ne# b- the #efen#ant an# s*orn to b- hi. before a notar- public" Sai# petition containe# anu.ber of uestions *hich the applicant *as reuire# to ans*er" A.on) other uestions *e fin# that No" & *as as follo*s3

5a!e -ou e!er been in#icte# trie# or sentence# in an- court for !iolation of an- la* or#inance or re)ulations or ha!e -ou e!er been trie# or

sentence# for !iolation of re)ulations of the Ar.- Na!- of the Constabular- in an- court .artial of the Ar.- or of the Constabular- or in another

court

To sai# uestion the #efen#ant ans*ere#3 =No sir I cannot re.e.ber an-"=

Durin) the trial of the cause the prosecutin) attorne- presente# E6hibits B C an# D"

E6hibit B sho*s that one Francisco Tupasi an# others on the ;th #a- of Februar- $%$$ ha# been arreste# b- an or#er of the 4ustice of the peace of

the .unicipalit- of Ta-u. Pro!ince of Ilocos Sur an# char)e# *ith #isturbin) the public peace *ere foun# )uilt- an# sentence# on the /1th #a- of

Februar- $%$$ to be i.prisone# for a perio# of fifteen #a-s an# each to pa- a fine of /& pesetas an# to pa- the costs"

E6hibit C sho*s that Francisco Tupasi on the $;th #a- of Ma- $%$$ ha# been arreste# an# ta+en before the 4ustice of the peace of the .unicipalit-

of Ta-u. Pro!ince of Ilocos Sur char)e# *ith the cri.e of =in4urias )ra!es= an# *as sentence# on the //# #a- of Ma- $%$$ to be i.prisone# for aperio# of fifteen #a-s an# to pa- a fine of 2& pesetas an# the costs"

E6hibit D is the certificate of the cler+ of the Court of First Instance of the Pro!ince of Ilocos Sur an# sho*s that the 5onorable Dionisio Chanco on

the /0th #a- of April $%$$ in an appeale# case for #isturbin) the public peace sentence# the sai# Francisco Tupasi an# others to pa- a fine of 01pesetas in case of insol!enc- to suffer subsi#iar- i.prison.ent an# to pa- the costs"

E6hibit A *as the s*orn petition presente# b- the #efen#ant for per.ission to ta+e the e6a.ination" Sai# petition *as si)ne# b- Fran+ Tupasi -

Molina" It *as sho*n #urin) the trial of the cause b- the a#.ission of the #efen#ant hi.self that he *as the sa.e person accuse# an# sentence# in

E6hibits B C an# D" It *as ar)ue# that the #efen#ant si)ne# sai# application in the na.e of =Fran+ Tupasi - Molina= *hen he ha# theretofore been
http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1761.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1761.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.html


13/14

+no*n as =Francisco Tupasi= for the purpose of a!oi#in) i#entit-" The #efen#ant sai# that =Francisco= *as the sa.e as =Fran+= an# that he ha#

a#opte# the na.e of =Fran+= instea# of =Francisco"= The ans*ers to the uestions in sai# application *ere .a#e in En)lish"

8ith reference to the first assi)n.ent of error that the lo*er court co..itte# an error in appl-in) section : of Act No" $0%2 to the facts in thepresent case it .a- be sai# that sai# article pro!i#es that3

An- person *ho ha!in) ta+en an oath before a co.petent tribunal officer or person in an- case in *hich a la* of the Philippine Islan#s authori>es

an oath to be a#.inistere# that he *ill testif- #eclare #epose or certif- trul- or that an- *ritten testi.on- #eclaration #eposition or certificate b-

hi. subscribe# is true *illfull- an# contrar- to such oath states or subscribes an- .aterial .atter *hich he #oes not belie!e to be true is )uilt- orper4ur- an# shall be punishe# etc"

Act No" /$0%of the Philippine 7e)islature *hich is anAct to provide for t#e reorganization' govern%ent' and inspection of %unicipal police of t#e

%unicipalities or provinces and subprovinces organized underAct No. () pro!i#es for the reor)ani>ation of the .unicipal police of the.unicipalities or pro!inces an# subpro!inces or)ani>e# un#erAct No" ;:"

Sai# Act further pro!i#es that sub4ect to the appro!al of the Secretar- of Co..erce an# Police the Director of Constabular- shall prepare )eneral

re)ulations for the )oo# )o!ern.ent #iscipline an# inspection of the .unicipal police =co.pliance *here*ith shall be obli)ator- for all .e.bersof the or)ani>ation"=

Sai# Act further pro!i#es for an e6a.inin) boar# for the .unicipal police" It further pro!i#es that sub4ect to the appro!al of the Secretar- of

Co..erce an# Police the Director of Constabular- shall prepare an e6a.ination .anual prescribin) at the sa.e ti.e suitable rules for the con#uctof the e6a.ination"

Sai# Act ?No" /$0%@ also pro!i#es for the ti.e an# place for hol#in) sai# e6a.inations"

Section % of sai# Act pro!i#es that3 =To be eli)ible for e6a.ination a can#i#ate shall ha!e the follo*in) reuire.ents3 " " " ?0@ 5a!e no cri.inal

recor#"=

In accor#ance *ith the reuire.ents of sai# la* the Director of Constabular- prepare# an e6a.ination .anual prescribin) at the sa.e ti.e rules forcon#uctin) e6a.inations *hich e6a.ination .anual *as appro!e# b- the Secretar- of Co..erce an# Police an# thereb- *as )i!en the force of

la*" Sai# .anual prescribe# a for. in blan+ +no*n as =Municipal For. No" $$= *hich for. each applicant *as reuire# to fill in or#er to beper.itte# to ta+e sai# e6a.ination" Sai# application reuire# the applicant to s*ear to the facts state# therein" 8e ha!e therefore a la* *hich

authori>es the a#.inistration of an oath in the present case"

Of course the re)ulations a#opte# un#er le)islati!e authorit- b- a particular #epart.ent .ust be in har.on- *ith the pro!isions of the la* an# for

the sole purpose of carr-in) into effect its )eneral pro!isions" B- such re)ulations of course the la* itself can not be e6ten#e#" So lon) ho*e!er asthe re)ulations relate solel- to carr-in) into effect the pro!isions of the la* the- are !ali#" A !iolation of a re)ulation prescribe# b- an e6ecuti!e

officer of the o!ern.ent in confor.it- *ith an# base# upon a statute authori>in) such re)ulation constitutes an offense an# ren#ers the offen#erliable to punish.ent in accor#ance *ith the pro!isions of la*" ?nite# States !s" Baile- % Pet" /:; /&/ /&' /&0 Caha !s" nite# States $&/ " S"

/$$ /$; nite# States !s" Eaton $'' " S" 022"@

In the !er- nature of thin)s in .an- cases it beco.es i.practicable for the le)islati!e #epart.ent of the o!ern.ent to pro!i#e )eneral re)ulations

for the !arious an# !ar-in) #etails for the .ana)e.ent of a particular #epart.ent of the o!ern.ent" It therefore beco.es con!enient for thele)islati!e #epart.ent of the o!ern.ent b- la* in a .ost )eneral *a- to pro!i#e for the con#uct control an# .ana)e.ent of the *or+ of the

particular #epart.ent of the o!ern.ent to authori>e certain persons in char)e of the .ana)e.ent control an# #irection of the particular#epart.ent to a#opt certain rules an# re)ulations pro!i#in) for the #etail of the .ana)e.ent an# control of such #epart.ent" Such re)ulations ha!e

unifor.l- been hel# to ha!e the force of la* *hene!er the- are foun# to be in consonance an# in har.on- *ith the )eneral purposes an# ob4ects of

the la*" Man- illustrations .i)ht be )i!en" For instance the Ci!il Ser!ice Boar# is )i!en authorit- to e6a.ine applicants for !arious positions *ithinthe o!ern.ent ser!ice" The la* )enerall- pro!i#es the con#itions in a .ost )eneral *a- authori>in) the chief of such Bureau to pro!i#e rules an#

re)ulations for the .ana)e.ent of the con#uct of e6a.inations etc" The la* pro!i#es that the Collector of Custo.s shall e6a.ine persons *ho

beco.e applicant to act as captains of ships for the coast*ise tra#e pro!i#in) at the sa.e ti.e that the Collector of Custo.s shall establish rules an#

re)ulations for such e6a.inations" Such re)ulations once establishe# an# foun# to be in confor.it- *ith the )eneral purposes of the la* are 4ust asbin#in) upon all of the parties as if the re)ulations ha# been *ritten in the ori)inal la* itself" ?nite# States !s" ri.au# //1 " S" &10 8illia.son

!s" nite# States /12 " S" '/& nite# States !s" nite# Ver#e Copper Co" $%0 " S" /12"@

B- reference to E6hibit A the application .a#e an# s*orn to b- the #efen#ant *e fin# that the oath *as ta+en before a notar- public a person

ualifie# to a#.inister an oath in accor#ance *ith the pro!isions of la*"

The #efen#ant in support of his first assi)n.ent of error ar)ues that the purpose of Act No" $0%2*as not inten#e# to co!er cases li+e the present"5e ar)ues that sai# Act *as an Act onl- authori>in) the appoint.ent of co..issioners to .a+e official in!esti)ations fi6in) their po*ers for the

pa-.ent of *itness fees an# for the punish.ent of per4ur- in official in!esti)ations" The sa.e uestion *as presente# to this court in the case of

*nited States vs. Concepcion?$: Phil" Rep" '/'@" In that case the court #eci#e# a)ainst the contention of the #efen#ant in the present case" It is truethat the title of sai# Act ?No" $0%2@ #oes not see. to in#icate that sai# la* containe# a pro!ision punishin) the cri.e of per4ur- )enerall-" Rea#in)

the title alone it *oul# see. to be a la* punishin) the cri.e of per4ur- in particular cases" The la* ?Act No" $0%2@ is a )eneral la*" It is not a pri!ate

or local la*" In the nite# States the constitutions in the #ifferent States )enerall- pro!i#e that the title of a la* shall in#icate the )eneral purpose of
http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act2169.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act83.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act83-the-provincial-government-act.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act2169.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act83.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act83-the-provincial-government-act.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.html


14/14

the la*" There see.s to be no pro!ision in the Philippine Islan#s that the title of a )eneral la* shall contain a state.ent of the sub4ect .atter of the

la*" Section & of the Act of Con)ress of (ul- $ $%1/ pro!i#es3

That noprivateor localbill *hich .a- be enacte# into la* shall e.brace .ore than one sub4ect an# that sub4ect shall be e6presse# in the title of thebill"

8e hel# in the case of *nited States vs. Concepcionsupra that sai# Act of Con)ress #i# not appl- to )eneral la*s an# that sai# section : *as a

pro!ision punishin) the cri.e of per4ur- )enerall-" ?" S" !s" De Cha!es $' Phil" Rep" &0&" S" !s" Estraa $0 Phil" Rep" &/1 " S" !s" Fonseca

/1 Phil" Rep" $%$"@

In the case of *nited States vs. +u%lao?R" " No" ;2/$ not reporte#@ this court hel# the #efen#ant )uilt- of the cri.e of per4ur- un#er facts e6actl-

analo)ous to those in this case un#er the pro!isions of section : ofAct No" $0%2"8e fin# no reason either in la* or in the ar)u.ent of the appellant

in the present case to .o#if- or re!erse our conclusions in that case ?No" ;2/$@"

8ith reference to the secon# assi)n.ent of error the appellant alle)e# that the lo*er court co..itte# an error in fin#in) that he ha# co..itte# the

cri.e of per4ur- !oluntaril- an# corruptl-" There is nothin) in the recor# *hich sho*s that he #i# not present to the proper authorities E6hibit A

!oluntaril-" It is #ifficult to un#erstan# in !ie* of the fact that the #efen#ant ha# theretofore been con!icte# of t*o #ifferent offenses an# in one ofthe. b- t*o courts ho* he coul# *ithin a fe* .onths thereafter .a+e a s*orn state.ent that he =#i# not ha!e a cri.inal recor#= unless he

ans*ere# sai# uestion No" & in the .anner in#icate# in sai# application for the e6press purpose of #ecei!in) the authorit- to *hich sai# application

*as presente#"

8ith reference to the thir# assi)n.ent of error it .a- be sai# that the lan)ua)e of uestion No" & see.s to be perfectl- clear" The #efen#ant a#.itte#

that he coul# rea# an# un#erstan# Spanish" It is to be note# that at the !er- be)innin) of sai# application there are three para)raphs #e!ote# to

instructions to the applicant *hich he shoul# ha!e rea# an# no #oubt #i#" Sai# instructions *ere sufficient to in#icate to the #efen#ant that if there*ere an- uestions *hich he #i# not full- un#erstan# he shoul# ha!e acuire# a full un#erstan#in) of the sa.e before ans*erin) the." If there *as

an- fault in un#erstan#in) sai# uestion No" & it *as *holl- #ue to his o*n ne)li)ence"

8ith reference to the fourth assi)n.ent of error the appellant conten#s that the lo*er court co..itte# an error in hol#in) that the phrase =*hich he#oes not belie!e to be true= foun# in section : of Act No" $0%2is eui!alent to the *or# =+no*in)l-= use# in other la*s" The lo*er court cite# the

case of *. S. vs. ,in -asa?$2 Phil" Rep" '0:@ in support of his conclusion" Sai# section : in effect pro!i#es that an- person *ho ta+es an oath

before a co.petent tribunal officer or person in an- case in *hich a la* of the Philippine Islan#s authori>es an oath that he *ill testif- etc" or thatan- *ritten testi.on- #eclaration etc" b- hi. subscribe# is true an# thereafter *illfull- an# contrar- to such oath states or subscribes an- .aterial

.atter =*hich he #oes not belie!e to be true= is )uilt- of per4ur-" n#er sai# section three thin)s are necessar- in or#er to constitute the cri.e of

per4ur-3

$" The person .ust ha!e ta+en an oath in a case *here the la* authori>es an oath before a co.petent person or a person authori>e# to a#.inister an

oath

/" That the person *ho has ta+en the oath *ill testif- #eclare #ispose or certif- trul- or that an- *ritten testi.on- #eclaration #eposition or

certificate b- hi. subscribe# is true

:" That he *illfull- an# contrar- to such oath states or subscribes an- .aterial .atter =*hich he #oes not belie!e to be true"=

It is #ifficult to un#erstan# ho* a person can state un#er oath that a fact is true or subscribe a #ocu.ent assertin) that the sa.e is true *hich he

#oes not belie!e to be true" If un#er his oath he #eclares that sai# facts are true *e .ust conclu#e that he belie!e# that the- *ere true" If as a .atterof fact the- *ere not true an# he ha# full +no*le#)e of the fact that the- *ere not true then his #eclaration that the- *ere true *oul# certainl- be a

s*orn state.ent that a certain fact *as true *hich he #i# not belie!e to be true an# therefore he .ust ha!e .a#e a false state.ent +no*in)l-"

8ithout atte.ptin) to sho* or assert that the phrase =*hich he #oes not belie!e to be true= is eui!alent to the *or# =+no*in)l-= as the lo*er courthel# *e are of the opinion that *hoe!er .a+es a state.ent or subscribes a #ocu.ent un#er the circu.stances .entione# in sai# section : *hich is

false an# *hich he at the ti.e he .a+es the sa.e #oes not belie!e to be true is )uilt- of the cri.e of per4ur-" In other *or#s un#er the

circu.stances .entione# in sai# section if one s*ears positi!el- that a fact is true *hich he #oes not belie!e to be true an# it turns out that it is

false he is )uilt- of the cri.e of per4ur-" No one shoul# s*ear positi!el- that a fact is true or subscribe a #ocu.ent assertin) that the facts state#therein are true unless he at least belie!es that the- are true at the ti.e he ta+es such oath or subscribes such #ocu.ent" It can scarcel- be belie!e#

that the #efen#ant in the present case belie!e# that the ans*er to sai# uestion No" & *as true" 5e .ust ha!e si)ne# or ans*ere# sai# uestion notonl- belie!in) that it *as not true but as a .atter of fact si)ne# the sa.e +no*in) that the ans*er *as false"

8ith reference to the fifth assi)n.ent of error *e are of the opinion that the e!i#ence a##uce# #urin) the trial of the cause clearl- sho*s that the

#efen#ant is )uilt- of the cri.e char)e# an# therefore the sentence of the lo*er court shoul# be an# is hereb- affir.e# *ith costs"
http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr5210-u-s-v-de-chaves.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr5751-u-s-v-estrana.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr6395-u-s-v-fonseca-and-magno.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr6255-u-s-v-tin-masa.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr5210-u-s-v-de-chaves.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr5751-u-s-v-estrana.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr6395-u-s-v-fonseca-and-magno.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act1697.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr6255-u-s-v-tin-masa.html

Labor Standards_3

Documents

Transcript of Labor Standards_3