Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1309

July 26, 1948

THE SHELL COMPANY OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LIMITED, recurrente,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, recurrida.
Sres. Ross, Selph, Carrascoso y Janda en representacion de la recurrente.
Sres. Paguia y Villanueva en representacion de la recurrida.
BRIONES, J.:
Actuando sobre una peticion de la entidad obrera llamada "National Labor Union," la Corte de
Relaciones Industriales ha dictado una decision en la que, entre otras cosas, se obliga a la firma
petrolera "The Shell Company of Philippine Islands, Limited" a pagar a sus obreros que trabajan
de noche (desde que se pone el sol hasta que se levanta al dia siguiente) una compensacion
adicional de 50% sobre sus salarios regulares si trabajasen de dia. Parece que la comania tiene
necesidad del servicio nocturno de un determinado numero de obreros, pues los aviones
procedentes del extranjero suelen aterrizar y despegarse de noche, siendo por esto necesario el
que se hagan faenas de noche para el suministro de gasolina y lubricantes, y para otros
menesteres. La compania petrolera se ha excepcionado contra dicha decision de ahi el presente
recurso de certiorari para que la revoquemos.
La compania recurrente alega y arguye que no solo no existe ninguna disposicion legal que
faculte a la Corte de Relaciones Industriales para ordenar el pago de compensacion adicional a
obreros que trabajan de noche, sino que, por el contrario, la ley del Commonwealth No. 444
exime al patrono de semejante obligacion toda vez que en dicha ley se proveen los casos en que
es compulsorio el pago de "overtime" (compensacion adicional), y entre tales casos no figura el
trabajo de noche.
Por su parte, la union obrera recurrida sostiene que la facultad que se discute forma parte de los
poderes amplios y efectivos que la ley del Commonwealth No. 103 la carta organica del
Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales otorga a dicho tribunal; y que la ley No. 444 del
Commonwealth que se invoca no tiene ninguna aplication al presente caso, pues la misma es de
alcance forzosamente limitado, refiriendose particular y exclusivamente a la jornada maxima de
trabajo contidiano permitida en los establecimientos industriales la jornada de 8 horas.
Nuestra conclusion es que la union obrera recurrida tiene la razon de su parte. Para una clara y
cabal elucidacion de los puntos discutidos, estmamos conveniente, aun a riesgo de alargar esta
ponencia, transcribir lasdisposiciones legales pertinentes que son los articulos 1, 4 y 13 de la ley
del Commonwealth No. 103. Helas aqui:

SECTION 1. The Judge: his appointment, qualifications, compensation, tenure. There

is hereby created a Court of Industrial Relations, which shall have jurisdiction over the
entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter,
controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, employers and employees or
laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulate the relation between
them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act. The Court shall keep
a record of all its proceedings and shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by
the President of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of
the National Assembly. The Judge of the Court shall hold office during good behavior
until he reaches the age of seventy years, or becomes incapacitated to discharge the duties
of his office. His qualifications shall be the same as those provided in the Constitution for
members of the Supreme Court and he shall receive an annual compensation of ten
thousand pesos and shall be entitled to traveling expenses and per diems when
performing official duties outside of the City of Manila. The Department of Justice shall
have executive supervision over the Court.
SEC. 4. Strikes and lockouts. The Court shall take cognizance for purpose of
prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising form differences as regards wages,
shares or compensation, 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
exceeds 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 and certified by the
Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealt with by the Court for the sake of
public interest. In all such cases, the Secretary of Labor or the party or parties submitting
the disputes, shall clearly and specifically state in writing the questions to be decided.
Upon the submission of such a controversy or question by the Secretary of Labor, his
intervention therein as authorized by law, shall cease.
The Court shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing, endeavor to
reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the dispute by amicable agreement. If any
agreement as to the whole or any part of the dispute is arrived at by the parties, a
memorandum of its terms shall be made in writing, signed and acknowledged by the
parties thereto before the Judge of the Court or any official acting in his behalf and
authorized to administer oaths or acknowledgments, or, before a notary public. The
memorandum shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court, and, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, shall, as between the parties to the agreement, have the same effect
as, and be deemed to be, a decision or award.
SEC. 13. Character of the award. In making an award, order or decision, under the
provisions of section four of this Act, the Court shall not be restricted to the specific
relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but
may include in the award, order or decision any matter or determination which my be
deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of setting the dispute or of preventing
further industrial or agricultural disputes.

Resulta evidente de las disposiciones transcritas lo siguiente: (a) que cuando surge una disputa
entre el principal y el empleado u obrero, vgr. sobre cuestion de salarios, la Corte de Relaciones
Industriales tiene jurisdiccion en todo el territorio de Filipinas para considerar, investigar y
resolver dicha disputa, fijando los salarios que estime justos y razonables; (b) que para los
efectos de prevencion, arbitraje, decision y arreglo, el mismo Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales
tien igualmente jurisdiccion para conocer de cualquier disputa industrial o agricola
resultante de cualesquier diferencias respecto de los salarios, participaciones o compensaciones,
horas de trabajo, condiciones del empleo o de la aparceria entre los patronos y los empleados u
obreros y entre los propietarios y los terratenientes u obreros agricolas previo el cumplimiento de
ciertos requisitos y condiciones, cuando se viere que dicha disputa ocasiona o puede ocasionar
una huelga; (c) que en el ejercicio de sus facultades arriba especificadas, el Tribunal de
Relaciones Industriales no queda limitado, al decidir la disputa, a conceder el remedio o
remedios solicitados por las partes en la controversia, sino que puede incluir en la orden or
decision cualquier materia o determinacion para el proposito de arreglar la disputa o de prevenir
ulteriores controversias industriales o agricolas.
En el caso nos ocupa existe indudablemente una dispunta industrial. Mientras la empresa, la
compania Shell, no esta dispuesta a pagar a sus obreros de noche mayores salarios que los
obreros de ida, la "NationalLabor Union", a la cual estan afiliados los trabajadoresde la Shell,
reclama otro tipo de salarios para el servicio nocturno un 50% mas. En esto consiste la
disputa, el litigio industrial. Ahora bien: que ha hecho la Corte de Relaciones Industriales,
despues de sometido el conflicto a su jurisdiccion? Pues precisamente lo que manda la citada ley
No. 103 del Commonwealth, carta organica de su creacion y funcionamiento, a saber: considerar,
investigar y enjuiciar la disputa, resolviedola despues en el sentido en que la ha resuelto, es decir,
remunerando el trabajo de noche con un 50% mas de los salarios de dia. Y esto es perfectamente
legal tanto dentro del alcance del articulo 1 de la referida ley No. 103 que faculta a la Corte de
Relaciones Industriales para decidir cualquier disputa sobre salarios y compensaciones en la
forma que estime razonable y conveniente, como dentro del marco del articulo 4 de la misma ley
que autoriza a dicho tribunal para enjuiciar y decidir cualquier pleito o controversia industrial o
agricola determine el estallido de una huelga o tienda a causarla. Mas todavia: lo hecho por el
Trbunal de Relaciones Industriales en el presente caso es asimismo legal dentro del marco del
articulo 13 de la misma ley No. 103, articulo que, como queda visto, no solo faculta a dicho
tribunal a conceder el remedio que recabanlas partes, sino inclusive a ir mas alla, esto es, a
otorgar remedios no expresamente solicitados, siempre que los mismos se encamienen a resolver
de una vez la disputa o a prevenir el estallido de ulteriores disputas o huelgas.
Es evidente que con estos amplios poderes el Estadose ha propuesto equipar al Tribunal de
Relaciones Industriales hasta el maximum posible de utilidad y eficacia, haciendo del mismo no
una simple agencia academica, sino verdaderamente activa, dinamica y eficiente en una
palabra, la maquinaria oficial por excelencia en la formidable y espinosa tarea de resolver los
conflictos industriales, yagricolas de cierta clase, previniendo y evitando de esta manera esos
paros y huelgas que tanto afligen y danan no solo a las empresas y a los obreros, sino, en general,
a toda la comunidad. En su opinion concurrente dictada en el caso autoritativo de Ang Tibay
contra Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales1 (R.G. No. 46496), el Magistado Laurel ha expresado
muy acertadamente la idea fundamental que subraya la creacion de dicho tribunal, con el
siguiente pronunciamiento:

In Commonwealth Act No. 103, and by it, our government no longer performs the role of
mere mediator or intervenor but that of supreme arbiter. (Las cursivas son nuestras.).
La recurrente arguye, sin embargo, que si bien es verdad que en caso de disputa el Tribunal de
relaciiones Industriales tiene, en virtud de su ley organica, el poder de fijar los salarios, tal poder
no es absoluto, sino que esta sujeto a ciertas restricciones y cortapizas, provistas en la ley
comunmente conocida por ley sobre la jornada de ocho horas, la ley del Commonwealth No.
444, cuyos articulos pertinentes se transacriben integramente a continuacion:
SECTION 1. The legal working day for any person employed by another shall be of not
more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during which the
laborer is not working and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not
be counted.
SEC. 3. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or impending
emergencies caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or
other disaster or calamity in order to prevent loss to life and property or imminent danger
to public safety; or in case urgent work to be performed on the machines, equipment, or
installations in order to avoid a serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer,
or some other just cause of a similar nature; but in all such cases the laborers and
employees shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work performed at
the same rate as their regular wages or salary, plus at least twenty-five per centum
additional.
In case of national emergency the government is empowered to establish rules and
regulations for the operation of the plants and factories and to determine the wages to be
paid the laborers.
SEC. 4. No person, firm, or corporation, business establishment or place or center of
labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays,
unless he is paid an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular
remuneration: Provided however, That this prohibition shall not apply to public utilities
performing some public service such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or
providing means of transportation or communication.
Como quiera argumentanlos abogados de la recurrente que en estos articulos se especifican
los casos en que se autoriza el pago de compensacion extra o adicional y son solo, a saber: (a) en
caso de "overtime" o trabajo en exceso de las horas regulares por razones imperiosasde urgencia
con motivo de algun desastre o accidente, o para evitar perdidas o repararlas; (b) en caso de
trabajo por los domingos y fiestas; (c) en caso de emergencia, y nada hay que se refiera al trabajo
de noche; luego la orden de que se trata es ilegal, pues no esta autorizada por la ley. "In the
absence recalcan los abogados de la recurrente legislation authorizing the payment of extra
compensation for work done at night, the Court of Industrial Relations ha no power or authority
to order the petitioner company to pay extra compensation for work done by its laborers at night.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Where, as inthe case at bar, statute expressly specifies the
cases where payment of extra compensation may be demanded, extra compensation may be

allowed in those cases only, and in no others. The provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 444
cannot be enlarged by implication or otherwise. Expressum facit cessare tacitum.
La argumentacion es erronea. La Ley No. 444 no es aplicable al presente caso, siendo evidente
que la misma tiene un objeto especifico, a saber: (a) fijar en 8 horas la jornada maxima de
trabajo; (b) senalar ciertos casos excepcionales en que se puede autorizar el trabajo fuera de
dicha jornada; (c) proveer un sobresueldo, que no debe ser menor de 25% del salario regular,
para el "overtime" o trabajo en exceso de las 8 horas.
En el caso de Manila Electric, solicitante-apelante, contra The Public Utities Employees'
Association,2 apelada, L-1206 (45 Off. Gaz., 1760), esta Corte ha declarado que la facultad
conferida por el articulo 1 de la ley del Commonwealth No. 103 al Tribunal de relaciones
Industriales para enjuciar y decidir pleitos y controversias industriales entre el capital y el
trabajo, que incluye la de fijar salarios y compnsaciones de empleados y obreros, ha quedado
restringida por el articulo 4 de la ley Commonwealth No. 444, que al mismo tiempo que limita a
un 25% del salario o compensacion regular del obrero el minimum de la compensacion adicional
que el tribunal puede conceder por trabajos en los Domingos y fiestas oficiales, exime del pago
de dicha compensacion adicional a las entidades de utilidad publica que prestan algun servicio
publico, como las que suministran gas, electricidad, fuerza mortriz, agua, o proveen medios de
transporte o communicacion. Tal restriccion viene a ser una excepcion de la facultad general del
tribunal para fijar, en casos de disputa, los salarios y compensaciones que deben pagar los
patronos a los empleados y obreros; y como quiera que dicho articulo 4 se refiere solamente a
salario o compensacion por trabajos durante los dias de Domingo y fiestas oficiales, es obvio que
no puede referirse a salario o compensacion adicional por trabajos fuera de lajornada de ocho
horas que generalmente se realizan desde primeras horas de la manana a ultimas horas de la
tarde, pues una cosa es trabajar en dias de Domingo y fiestas oficiales, y otra cosa bien distinta es
trabajar de noche of fuera de la jornada de ocho horas en dias laborables. Aplicando la maxima
legal "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," se puede sostener, sin temor de equivocarse, que
una ley que provee una excepcion especifica a sus disposiciones generales, como la
compensacion adicional por trabajos en dias de Domingo y fiestas oficiales, excluye cualquiera
otra, como la compensacion adicional por trabajos de noche en dias laborables."Another case in
which this maxim may almost invariably by followed is that of statute which makes certain
specific exceptions to its general provisions. Here wemay safely assume that all other exceptions
were intended to be excluded." (Wabash R. Co.vs. United States, 178 Fed., 5, 101 C. C. A. 133;
Cella Commision Co. vs. Bohlinger, 147 Fed., 419; 78 C. C. A. 467; Kunkalman vs. Gibson, 171
Ind., 503; 84 N.E. 985; Hering vs. Clement, 133 App. Div., 293; 117 N.Y., Supp. 747.).
El trabajo denoche que la compania Shell exige de sus obreros no es talmente un "overtime", en
el sentido en que se emplea esta palabra en la Le No. 444, sino que es una jornada completa de
trabajo, tambien de 8 horas: solo que, en vez de realizarse de dia, se hace de noche. Dicho en
otras palabras, el trabajo de noche de que aqui se trata no es solamente unexceso, prolongacion u
"overtime" del trabajo regular de dia, sino que es otro tipo de trabajo, absolutamente
independiente de la jornada diurna. Por eso hay dos turnos: el turno de obreros que trabajan de
dia; y el turno de los que trabajan de noche. Asi que no es extrano que el legislador no haya
incluido este tipo de trabajo entre los casos de "overtime" senalados en la referida ley No. 444.

La cuestion que, a nuestro juicio, se debe determinar es si entre las facultades generales de la
Corte de Relaciones Industriales que estan admitidas sin dipusta, esta la de considerar la jornada
de noche como una jornada completa de trabajo; la de estimarla como mas gravosa que la
jornada de dia; y consiguientemente, la de proveer y ordenar que se remunere con un 50% mas
de los salarios regulares diurnos. Nuestra contestacion es afirmativa: todo esto se halla
comprendido entre los poderes generales de la Corte de Relaciones Industriales. Si este tribunal
tiene, en casos de disputa, el poder de fijar los salarios que estime justos y razonables para el
trabajo de dia, no hay razon por que no ha de tener el mismo poder con respecto a los salarios de
noche; es tan trabajo lo uno como lo otro. Y con respecto ala apreciacion de que el trabajo de
noche es mas pesado y oneroso que el de dia y, por tanto, merece mayor remuneracion, tampoco
hay motivospara revocarla o alterarla. No hay argumento posible contra el hecho universal de
que el trabajo regular, normal y ordinario es el de dia, y que el trabajo de noche es muy
exceptional y justificado solo por ciertos motivos imperativamente inevitables. Por algo la
humanidad ha trabajadosiempre de dia.
Razones de higiene, de medicina, de moral, de cultura, de sociologia, establecen de consuno que
el trabajo de nocho tiene muchos inconvenientes, y cuando no hay mas remedio que hacerlo es
solo justo que se remunero mejor que de ordinario para resarcir hasa cierto punto al obrero de
tales inconvenientes. Es indudable que el trabajo de noche no solo a la larga afecta a la salud del
trabajador, sino que le priva a este de ciertas cosas que hacen relativamente agradable la vida,
como, vgr., un reposo completo e ininterrumpido y ciertos ratos de solaz, ocio o expansion
espiritual y cultural que podria tener al terminar el trabajo por la tarde y durante las primeras
horas de la noche. Se dice que el obrero puede descansar de dia despues de haber trabajado toda
la noche; pero puede acaso el reposo de dia dar al cuerpo aquel tonico y aquel efecto reparador
completo que solo puede proporcionar el reposo natural de noche? Se dice tambien que algunos
prefieren trabajar de noche bajo nuestro clima abrasador, evitando asi el calor del dia. Mucho
tememos, sin embargo, que esto sea mejor hablado que praticado. Creemos que desde tiempo
inmemorial la regla universal es que el hombre trabja de noche mas por necesidad irremediable
que por placentera conveniencia.
A la opinion vulgar, universal, hay que sumar la opinionpericial, el criterio especialista. La
opinion de los tratadistas y expertos milita decididamente en favor de la tesis de que el trabajo de
noche es mas duro y oneroso que el trabajo de dia, considerandose por esto con marcada
repugnancia y compeliendo consiguientemente a las gerencias capitalisticas a establecer una
escala mas alta de salarios como incentivo a los obreros para aceptarlo. Se podrian citar virias
autoridades, pero para no extender demasiado esta ponencia optamos por transcriber solamente
algunas, a saber:
. . . Then, it must be remembered that it is distinctly unphysiological to turn the night into
day and deprive the body of the beneficial effects of sunshine. The human organism
revolts against this procedure. Added to artificial lighting are reversed and unnatural
times of eating, resting, and sleeping. Much of the inferiority of nightwork can doubtless
be traced to the failure of the workers to secure proper rest and sleep, by day. Because of
inability or the lack of opportunity to sleep, nightworkers often spend their days in
performing domestic duties, joining the family in the midday meal, 'tinkering about the
place', watching the baseball game, attending the theater or taking a ride in the car. It is

not strange that nightworkers tend to be less efficient than dayworkers and lose more
time. . . (The Management of Labor Relations, by Watkins & Dodd, page 524.).
Nightwork. Nightwork has gained a measure of prominence in the modern industrial
system in connection with continuous industries, that is, industries in which the nature of
the processes makes it necessary to keep machinery and equipment in constant operation.
Even in continuous industries the tendency is definitely in the direction of FOUR shifts of
6 hours each, with provision for an automatic change of shift for all workers at stated
intervals. Some discussion has taken place with regard to the lengths of the period any
workers should be allowed to remain on the night shift. A weekly change of shifts is
common, specially where three or four shifts are in operation; in other cases the change is
made fortnightly or monthly; in still other instances, no alternation is provided for, the
workers remaining on day or nightwork permanently, except where temporary
changes are made for individual convenience.
There is sharp difference of opinion concerning the relative merits of these systems.
Advocates of the weekly change of shifts contend that the strain of nightwork and the
difficulty of getting adequate sleep during the day make it unwise for workers to remain
on the"graveyard" shift for more than a week at a time. Opponents urge that repeated
changes make it more difficult to settle down to either kind of shift and that after the first
week nightwork becomes less trying while the ability to sleep by day increases. Workers
themselves react in various ways to the different systems. This much, however, is certain:
Few persons react favorably to nightwork, whether the shift be continuous or alternating.
Outside of continuous industries, nightwork can scarcely be justified, and, even in these,
it presents serious disadvantages which must be recognized in planing for industrial
efficiency, stabilization of the working force, the promotion of industrial good-will, and
the conservation of the health and vitality of the workers.
Nightwork cannot be regarded as desirable, either from the point of view of the employer
or of the wage earner. It is uneconomical unless overhead costs are unusually heavy.
Frequently the scale of wages is higher as an inducement to employees to accept
employment on the night shift, and the rate of production is generally lower.
(Management of Labor Relations, by Watkins & Dodd, pp. 522-524; emphasis ours.)
. . . The lack of sunlight tends to produce anemia and tuberculosis and to predispose to
other ills. Nightwork brings increased liability to eyestrain and accident. Serious moral
dangers also are likely to result from the necessity of traveling the streets alone at night,
and from the interference with normal home life. From an economic point of view,
moreover, the investigations showed that nightwork was unprofitable, being inferior to
day work both in quality and in quantity. Wherever it had been abolished, in the long run
the efficiency both of the management and of the workers was raised. Furthermore, it was
found that nightwork laws are a valuable aid in enforcing acts fixing the maximum period
of employment. (Principles of Labor Legislation, by Commons and Andrews, 4th
Revised Edition, p. 142.)

Special regulation of nightwork for adult men is a comparatively recent development.

Some European countries have adopted laws placing special limitations on hours of
nightwork for men, and others prohibit such work except in continuous processes.
(Principles of Labor legislation, 4th Revised Edition by Common & Andrews, p. 147.)
Nightwork has almost invariably been looked upon with disfavor by students of the
problem because of the excessive strain involved, especially for women and young
persons, the large amount of lost time consequent upon exhaustion of the workers, the
additional strain and responsibility upon the executive staff, the tendency of excessively
fatigued workers to "keep going" on artificial stimulants, the general curtailment of time
for rest, leisure, and cultural improvement, and the fact that night workers, although
precluded to an extent from the activities of day life, do attempt to enter into these
activities, with resultant impairment of physical well-being. It is not contended, of course,
that nightwork could be abolished in the continuous-process industries, but it is possible
to put such industries upon a three- or four-shifts basis, and to prohibit nightwork for
women and children. (Labor's Progress and Problems, Vol. I, p. 464, by Professors Millis
and Montgomery.)
Nightwork. Civilized peoples are beginning to recognize the fact that except in cases
of necessity or in periods of great emergency, nightwork is socially undesirable. Under
our modern industrial system, however, nightwork has greatly aided the production of
commodities, and has offered a significant method of cutting down the ever-increasing
overhead costs of industry. This result has led employers to believe that such work is
necessary and profitable. Here again one meets a conflict of economic and social
interests. Under these circumstances it is necessary to discover whether nightwork has
deleterious effects upon the health of laborers and tends to reduce the ultimate supply of
efficient labor. If it can proved that nightwork affects adversely both the quality and
quantity of productive labor, its discontinuance will undoubtedly be sanctioned by
employers. From a social point of view, even a relatively high degree of efficiency in
night operations must be forfeited if it is purchased with rapid exhaustion of the health
and energy of the workers. From an economic point of view, nightwork may be necessary
if the employer is to meet the demand for his product, or if he is to maintain his market in
the face of increasing competition or mounting variable production costs.
Industrial experience has shown that the possession of extra-ordinary physical strength
and self-control facilitates the reversal of the ordinary routine of day work and night rest,
with the little or no unfavorable effect on health and efficiency. Unusual vitality and selfcontrol, however, are not common possessions. It has been found that the most serious
obstacle to a reversal of the routine is the lack of self-discipline. Many night workers
enter into the numerous activities of day life that preclude sleep, and continue to attempt
to do their work at night. Evidence gathered by the British Health of Munition Workers'
Committee places permanent night workers, whether judged on the basis of output or loss
of time, in a very unfavorable positions as compared with day workers.
Systems of nightwork differ. There is the continuous system, in which employees labor
by night and do not attend the establishment at all by day, and the discontinuous system,

in which the workers change to the day turn at regular intervals, usually every other
week. There are, of course, minor variations in these systems, depending upon the nature
of the industry and the wishes of management. Such bodies as the British Health
Munition Workers' Committee have given us valuable conclusions concerning the effect
of nightwork. Continuous nightwork is definitely less productive than the discontinuous
system. The output of the continuous day shift does not make up for this loss in
production.
There is, moreover, a marked difference between the rates of output of night and day
shifts on the discontinuous plan. In each case investigated the inferiority of night labor
was definitely established. This inferiority is evidently the result of the night worker's
failure to secure proper amounts of sleep and rest during the day. The system of
continuous shifts, especially for women, is regarded by all investigators as undesirable.
Women on continuous nightwork are likely to perform domestic duties, and this added
strain undoubtedly accounts for the poorer results of their industrial activities. The
tendency to devote to amusement and other things the time that should be spent in rest
and sleep is certainly as common among men as among women workers and accounts
largely for the loss of efficiency and time on the part of both sexes in nightwork.
The case against nightwork, then, may be said to rest upon several grounds. In the first
place, there are the remotely injurious effects of permanent nightwork manifested in the
later years of the worker's life. Of more immediate importance to the average worker is
the disarrangement of his social life, including the recreational activities of his leisure
hours and the ordinary associations of normal family relations. From an economic point
of view, nightwork is to be discouraged because of its adverse effect upon efficiency and
output. A moral argument against nightwork in the case of women is that the night shift
forces the workers to go to and from the factory in darkness. Recent experiences of
industrial nations have added much to the evidence against the continuation of nightwork,
except in extraordinary circumstances and unavoidable emergencies. The immediate
prohibition of nightwork for all laborers is hardly practicable; its discontinuance in the
case of women employees is unquestionably desirable. 'The night was made for rest and
sleep and not for work' is a common saying among wage-earning people, and many of
them dream of an industrial order in which there will be no night shift. (Labor Problems,
3rd Edition, pp. 325-328, by Watkins & Dodd.).
En meritos de lo expuesto, se deniega el recurso de certiorari interpuesto y se confirma la
sentencia del Tribunal De Reclaciones Industriales, con costas a cargo de a recurrente. Asi se
ordena.
Paras, Pres. Interino, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla and Tuason, MM., estan
conformes.

Footnotes

69 Phil., 635.

79 Phil., 409.