The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is
precisely the very means of insuring its preservation. In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby
denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
The scope of police power keeps expanding as civilization advances. As
was said in the case of Dobbins v. Los Angeles (195 U.S. 223, 238; 49 Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz. and Horrilleno. JJ. concur.
L. ed. 169), "the right to exercise the police power is a continuing one,
and a business lawful today may in the future, because of the changed
situation, the growth of population or other causes, become a menace
to the public health and welfare, and be required to yield to the public
good." And in People v. Pomar (46 Phil., 440), it was observed that
"advancing civilization is bringing within the police power of the state
today things which were not thought of as being within such power
yesterday. The development of civilization, the rapidly increasing
population, the growth of public opinion, with an increasing desire on
the part of the masses and of the government to look after and care
for the interests of the individuals of the state, have brought within the
police power many questions for regulation which formerly were not so
considered." cralaw virtua1aw library
The petitioner finally avers that the rules and regulations complained
of infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of
social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the
people. The promotion of social justice, however, is to be achieved not
through a mistaken sympathy towards any given group. Social justice
is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"
but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
skills;" 3 and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid
exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not executive, in
character.
Gutierrez & Alo Law Offices for petitioner. The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction.
It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that
may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote
the general welfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition
5
SARMIENTO, J.: of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-
"engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas comprehensive embrace.
placement," 1 challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of
1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES
GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times,
DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Specifically, the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females;" 2 that it even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides
"does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar
enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions In the light of the foregoing, the petition must be dismissed.
and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits." 6
It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the
does not owe its origin to the Charter. Along with the taxing power presumption logically stands.
and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and
sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the
enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance. contested measure should be nullified. There is no question that
Marshall, to whom the expression has been credited, refers to it
7
Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract
succinctly as the plenary power of the State "to govern its workers," but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination
14
citizens."8
between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law"
under the Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights
15
"The police power of the State ... is a power coextensive with self- among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided
protection, and it is not inaptly termed the "law of overwhelming that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2)
necessity." It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not
the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all
comfort, safety, and welfare of society." 9
members of the same class. 16
It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. According The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the preference
to Fernando, it is "rooted in the conception that men in organizing for female workers — rests on substantial distinctions.
the state and imposing upon its government limitations to
safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the
individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad,
the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to ensure especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working
communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare." Significantly,
10
conditions marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal
the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant
guaranty of individual rights and liberties "Even liberty itself, the Filipina workers, even rape and various forms of torture,
greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to confirmed by testimonies of returning workers, are compelling
one's will." It is subject to the far more overriding demands and
11
motives for urgent Government action. As precisely the caretaker
requirements of the greater number. of Constitutional rights, the Court is called upon to protect victims
of exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the
Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not without Government's efforts.
its own limitations. For all its awesome consequences, it may not
be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise, and in that The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the
event, it defeats the purpose for which it is exercised, that is, to first place, there is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated
advance the public good. Thus, when the power is used to further instances, our men abroad have been afflicted with an Identical
private interests at the expense of the citizenry, there is a clear predicament. The petitioner has proffered no argument that the
misuse of the power. 12
Government should act similarly with respect to male workers. The Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions. Rather,
The Court, of course, is not impressing some male chauvinistic it is intended to apply indefinitely so long as those conditions
notion that men are superior to women. What the Court is saying exist. This is clear from the Order itself ("Pending review of the
is that it was largely a matter of evidence (that women domestic administrative and legal measures, in the Philippines and in the
workers are being ill-treated abroad in massive instances) and host countries . . ." ), meaning to say that should the authorities
18
not upon some fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the Government arrive at a means impressed with a greater degree of
acted in this case. It is evidence capable indeed of permanency, the ban shall be lifted. As a stop-gap measure, it is
unquestionable demonstration and evidence this Court accepts. possessed of a necessary malleability, depending on the
The Court cannot, however, say the same thing as far as men are circumstances of each case. Accordingly, it provides:
concerned. There is simply no evidence to justify such an
inference. Suffice it to state, then, that insofar as classifications 9. LIFTING OF SUSPENSION. — The Secretary
are concerned, this Court is content that distinctions are borne by of Labor and Employment (DOLE) may, upon
the evidence. Discrimination in this case is justified. recommendation of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), lift the
As we have furthermore indicated, executive determinations are suspension in countries where there are:
generally final on the Court. Under a republican regime, it is the
executive branch that enforces policy. For their part, the courts 1. Bilateral agreements or understanding with the
decide, in the proper cases, whether that policy, or the manner by Philippines, and/or,
which it is implemented, agrees with the Constitution or the laws,
but it is not for them to question its wisdom. As a co-equal body, 2. Existing mechanisms providing for sufficient
the judiciary has great respect for determinations of the Chief safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of
Executive or his subalterns, especially when the legislature itself Filipino workers.19
has specifically given them enough room on how the law should
be effectively enforced. In the case at bar, there is no gainsaying
The Court finds, finally, the impugned guidelines to be applicable
the fact, and the Court will deal with this at greater length shortly,
to all female domestic overseas workers. That it does not apply to
that Department Order No. 1 implements the rule-making powers
"all Filipina workers" is not an argument for unconstitutionality.
20
granted by the Labor Code. But what should be noted is the fact
Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have
that in spite of such a fiction of finality, the Court is on its own
been unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of
persuaded that prevailing conditions indeed call for a deployment
them are similarly circumstanced. What the Constitution prohibits
ban.
is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within an
existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or
There is likewise no doubt that such a classification is germane to resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of
the purpose behind the measure. Unquestionably, it is the persons. To apply the ban, say exclusively to workers deployed
avowed objective of Department Order No. 1 to "enhance the by A, but not to those recruited by B, would obviously clash with
protection for Filipino female overseas workers" this Court has
17
the equal protection clause of the Charter. It would be a classic
no quarrel that in the midst of the terrible mistreatment Filipina case of what Chase refers to as a law that "takes property from A
workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment will be for and gives it to B." It would be an unlawful invasion of property
21
their own good and welfare. rights and freedom of contract and needless to state, an invalid
act. (Fernando says: "Where the classification is based on such
22
5.4 Hirings by employers in
distinctions that make a real difference as infancy, sex, and stage countries with whom the
of civilization of minority groups, the better rule, it would seem, is Philippines have [sic] bilateral
to recognize its validity only if the young, the women, and the labor agreements or
cultural minorities are singled out for favorable treatment. There understanding.
would be an element of unreasonableness if on the contrary their
status that calls for the law ministering to their needs is made the xxx xxx xxx
basis of discriminatory legislation against them. If such be the
case, it would be difficult to refute the assertion of denial of equal 7. VACATIONING DOMESTIC HELPERS AND
protection." In the case at bar, the assailed Order clearly
23
WORKERS OF SIMILAR SKILLS--Vacationing
accords protection to certain women workers, and not the domestic helpers and/or workers of similar skills
contrary.) shall be allowed to process with the POEA and
leave for worksite only if they are returning to the
It is incorrect to say that Department Order No. 1 prescribes a same employer to finish an existing or partially
total ban on overseas deployment. From scattered provisions of served employment contract. Those workers
the Order, it is evident that such a total ban has hot been returning to worksite to serve a new employer
contemplated. We quote: shall be covered by the suspension and the
provision of these guidelines.
5. AUTHORIZED DEPLOYMENT-The deployment
of domestic helpers and workers of similar skills xxx xxx xxx
defined herein to the following [sic] are authorized
under these guidelines and are exempted from 9. LIFTING OF SUSPENSION-The Secretary of
the suspension. Labor and Employment (DOLE) may, upon
recommendation of the Philippine Overseas
5.1 Hirings by immediate members Employment Administration (POEA), lift the
of the family of Heads of State and suspension in countries where there are:
Government;
1. Bilateral agreements or
5.2 Hirings by Minister, Deputy understanding with the
Minister and the other senior Philippines, and/or,
government officials; and
2. Existing mechanisms providing
5.3 Hirings by senior officials of for sufficient safeguards to ensure
the diplomatic corps and duly the welfare and protection of
accredited international Filipino workers. 24
organizations.
xxx xxx xxx
The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel its sons and daughters to strange lands because it cannot satisfy
does not impair the right. The right to travel is subject, among their employment needs at home. Under these circumstances,
other things, to the requirements of "public safety," "as may be the Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling
provided by law." Department Order No. 1 is a valid
25
expatriates have adequate protection, personally and
implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to economically, while away from home. In this case, the
"afford protection to labor," pursuant to the respondent
26
Government has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot
Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the seriously dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such protection,
Labor Code. The petitioner assumes that it is unreasonable
27
and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban
simply because of its impact on the right to travel, but as we have on deployment.
stated, the right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order is a
valid qualification thereto. The Court finds furthermore that the Government has not
indiscriminately made use of its authority. It is not contested that it
Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. has in fact removed the prohibition with respect to certain
1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power. It is true that countries as manifested by the Solicitor General.
police power is the domain of the legislature, but it does not mean
that such an authority may not be lawfully delegated. As we have The non-impairment clause of the Constitution, invoked by the
mentioned, the Labor Code itself vests the Department of Labor petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes targetted by the
and Employment with rulemaking powers in the enforcement Government. Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other
31
whereof. 28
freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in this jurisdiction,
where laissez faire has never been fully accepted as a controlling
The petitioners's reliance on the Constitutional guaranty of worker economic way of life.
participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits" is not well-taken. The right granted by
29
This Court understands the grave implications the questioned
this provision, again, must submit to the demands and necessities Order has on the business of recruitment. The concern of the
of the State's power of regulation. Government, however, is not necessarily to maintain profits of
business firms. In the ordinary sequence of events, it is profits
The Constitution declares that: that suffer as a result of Government regulation. The interest of
the State is to provide a decent living to its citizens. The
Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to Government has convinced the Court in this case that this is its
labor, local and overseas, organized and intent. We do not find the impugned Order to be tainted with a
unorganized, and promote full employment and grave abuse of discretion to warrant the extraordinary relief
equality of employment opportunities for all.
30 prayed for.
"Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. No costs.
employment alone. What concerns the Constitution more
paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, SO ORDERED.
just, and humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send
Yap, C.J., Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, for reconsideration and moves that, for the reasons stated in his
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes and Griño-Aquino, motion, we reconsider the following legal conclusions of the
JJ., concur. majority opinion of this Court:
Gutierrez, Jr. and Medialdea, JJ., are on leave. 1. Que un contrato de trabajo, asi individual como
colectivo, sin termino fijo de duracion o que no sea para
una determinada, termina o bien por voluntad de
cualquiera de las partes o cada vez que ilega el plazo
fijado para el pago de los salarios segun costumbre en la
localidad o cunado se termine la obra;
G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940 3. Que un patrono o sociedad que ha celebrado un
contrato colectivo de trabajo con sus osbreros sin tiempo
ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager fijo de duracion y sin ser para una obra determiminada y
and propietor, and que se niega a readmitir a dichos obreros que cesaron
NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners, como consecuencia de un paro forzoso, no es culpable
vs. de practica injusta in incurre en la sancion penal del
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL articulo 5 de la Ley No. 213 del Commonwealth, aunque
LABOR UNION, INC., respondents. su negativa a readmitir se deba a que dichos obreros
pertenecen a un determinado organismo obrero, puesto
Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney que tales ya han dejado deser empleados suyos por
Barcelona for the Court of Industrial Relations. terminacion del contrato en virtud del paro.
Antonio D. Paguia for National Labor Unon.
Claro M. Recto for petitioner "Ang Tibay". The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand,
Jose M. Casal for National Workers' Brotherhood. prays for the vacation of the judgement rendered by the majority
of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of
LAUREL, J.: Industrial Relations for a new trial, and avers:
The Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of 1. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26,
Industrial Relations in the above-entitled case has filed a motion 1938, there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY
making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring the National
members of the National Labor Union Inc., is entirely false Workers' Brotherhood.
and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of
Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in 8. That the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to
leather. the respondents that even with the exercise of due
diligence they could not be expected to have obtained
2. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial
Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically Relations.
prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of
his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. 9. That the attached documents and exhibits are of such
far-reaching importance and effect that their admission
3. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of
dated September 29, 1938, (re supposed delay of leather the judgment rendered herein.
soles from the States) was but a scheme to systematically
prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the
his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. motion for reconsideration of the respondent National Labor
Union, Inc.
4. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY
is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio In view of the conclusion reached by us and to be herein after
Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal. stead with reference to the motion for a new trial of the
(281 U.S., 548, petitioner's printed memorandum, p. 25.) respondent National Labor Union, Inc., we are of the opinion that
it is not necessary to pass upon the motion for reconsideration of
5. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to the Solicitor-General. We shall proceed to dispose of the motion
collective bargaining, majority rule and elective for new trial of the respondent labor union. Before doing this,
representation are highly essential and indispensable. however, we deem it necessary, in the interest of orderly
(Sections 2 and 5, Commonwealth Act No. 213.) procedure in cases of this nature, in interest of orderly procedure
in cases of this nature, to make several observations regarding
6. That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had the nature of the powers of the Court of Industrial Relations and
been (the) principal source of dissensions and continuous emphasize certain guiding principles which should be observed in
civil war in Spain cannot and should not be made the trial of cases brought before it. We have re-examined the
applicable in interpreting and applying the salutary entire record of the proceedings had before the Court of Industrial
provisions of a modern labor legislation of American origin Relations in this case, and we have found no substantial
where the industrial peace has always been the rule. evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to
their union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript taken
7. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair contains what transpired during the hearing and is more of a
labor practice for discriminating against the National record of contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing
counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It
is evident that these statements and expressions of views of When directed by the President of the Philippines, it shall
counsel have no evidentiary value. investigate and study all industries established in a designated
locality, with a view to determinating the necessity and fairness of
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose fixing and adopting for such industry or locality a minimum wage
functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation or share of laborers or tenants, or a maximum "canon" or rental to
(Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative than a be paid by the "inquilinos" or tenants or less to landowners.
part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not (Section 5, ibid.) In fine, it may appeal to voluntary arbitration in
intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike the settlement of industrial disputes; may employ mediation or
a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system
jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented of official investigation and compulsory arbitration in order to
to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial determine specific controversies between labor and capital
Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more industry and in agriculture. There is in reality here a mingling of
active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or executive and judicial functions, which is a departure from the
quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers.
employers and employees but its functions in the determination of
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R.
far more comprehensive and expensive. It has jurisdiction over No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion
the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle to joint out that the Court of Industrial Relations et al., G. R. No.
any question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion to
and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and point out that the Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly
regulate the relations between them, subject to, and in constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the Act requires
accordance with, the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103 it to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of
(section 1). It shall take cognizance or purposes of prevention, the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall
arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or not be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall not be
agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its
arising from differences as regards wages, shares or mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable." (Section
compensation, hours of labor or conditions of tenancy or 20, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) It shall not be restricted to the
employment, between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the
provided that the number of employees, laborers or tenants of industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award,
farm-laborers involved exceeds thirty, and such industrial or order or decision any matter or determination which may be
agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by the Secretary of deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the
Labor or by any or both of the parties to the controversy and dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes.
certified by the Secretary of labor as existing and proper to be by (section 13, ibid.) And in the light of this legislative policy, appeals
the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealth with by to this Court have been especially regulated by the rules recently
the Court for the sake of public interest. (Section 4, ibid.) It shall, promulgated by the rules recently promulgated by this Court to
before hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing, carry into the effect the avowed legislative purpose. The fact,
endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be
dispute by amicable agreement. (Paragraph 2, section 4, ibid.) free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not
mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or 1335), but the evidence must be "substantial."
disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v. national
process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648,
There are primary rights which must be respected even in 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) It means such relevant evidence
proceedings of this character: as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." (Appalachian Electric Power v. National
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National
includes the right of the party interested or affected to Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97
present his own case and submit evidence in support F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National
thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes, in Morgan v. Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The
U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129, statute provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in
"the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.' The
by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free
administrative boards from the compulsion of technical
(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to rules so that the mere admission of matter which would
present his case and to adduce evidence tending to be deemed incompetent inn judicial proceedings would
establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must not invalidate the administrative order. (Interstate
consider the evidence presented. (Chief Justice Hughes Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44, 24 S.
in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law. ed. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce
1288.) In the language of this court in Edwards vs. Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S.
McCoy, 22 Phil., 598, "the right to adduce evidence, 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States
without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to v. Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law.
consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in
person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can administrative procedure does not go far as to justify
thrust it aside without notice or consideration." orders without a basis in evidence having rational
probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor
does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated
(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the
Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct.
obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which
206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)"
cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something
to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached."
(Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence
from the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a record and disclosed to the parties affected. (Interstate
limitation upon power. Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88,
33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the
administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a
parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know
finding or conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin, G.R. No.
and meet the case against them. It should not, however,
45844, promulgated November 29, 1937, XXXVI O. G.
detract from their duty actively to see that the law is In the right of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient
enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal to observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between
methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts the Ang Tibay and the National Worker's Brotherhood (appendix
material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual
may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and basis upon which to predicate, in a national way, a conclusion of
determining the facts in any given case, but their report law.
and decision are only advisory. (Section 9,
Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial This result, however, does not now preclude the concession of a
Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute new trial prayed for the by respondent National Labor Union, Inc.,
or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a it is alleged that "the supposed lack of material claimed by Toribio
local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal. a justice of the Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to systematically discharged
peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines all the members of the National Labor Union Inc., from work" and
for investigation, report and recommendation, and may this avernment is desired to be proved by the petitioner with the
delegate to such board or public official such powers and "records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of
functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may native dealers in leather"; that "the National Workers Brotherhood
deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the Union of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by
exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers. (Section Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal."
10, ibid.) Petitioner further alleges under oath that the exhibits attached to
the petition to prove his substantial avernments" are so
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, inaccessible to the respondents that even within the exercise of
therefore, must act on its or his own independent due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations", and
not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at that the documents attached to the petition "are of such far
a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that reaching importance and effect that their admission would
it is literally Relations personally to decide all necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment
controversies coming before them. In the United States rendered herein." We have considered the reply of Ang Tibay and
the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory its arguments against the petition. By and large, after
authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates to considerable discussions, we have come to the conclusion that
render final decision, with the right to appeal to board or the interest of justice would be better served if the movant is
commission, but in our case there is no such statutory given opportunity to present at the hearing the documents
authority. referred to in his motion and such other evidence as may be
relevant to the main issue involved. The legislation which created
(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all the Court of Industrial Relations and under which it acts is new.
controversial questions, render its decision in such a The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result.
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be and the same is
rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be
from the authority conferred upon it. remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction that
it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set of Manila declaring permanent the writ of preliminary injunction
forth hereinabove. So ordered. issued in this case and condemning the defendants (herein
appellants) to pay plaintiff (herein appellee), the amount of
Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion and P10,152.42 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the
Moran, JJ., concur. commencement of this action until fully paid, P1,000.00 as
attorney's fees and costs.
LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS, INC., plaintiff-appellee, Plaintiff further alleged that it has a bodega for its newsprint in the
vs. sublet property which it uses for its printing and publishing
PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS UNION, Affiliated with business. The daily supply of newsprint needed to feed its
the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS, printing plant is taken from this bodega.
HERMOGENES ATRAZO, AQUILINO DISTOR, BENJAMIN
GUTIERREZ, JOSE RAMOS, TIBURCIO MARDO, ERNESTO On September 10, 1964, the employees of the Permanent
ALMARIO and DOMINGO LEANO, defendants-appellants. Concrete Products, Inc. who are representatives and members of
the defendant union declared a strike against their company.
(b) ordering the defendants and their representatives not to Plaintiff Liwayway Publications, Inc. opposed the motion, alleging
blockade and/or picket the compound and the gate of the plaintiff; that:
(c) ordering the defendants not to stop, prohibit, molest and 1. There is no employer-employee relationship between the
interfere with the free passage of the plaintiff in going in and out plaintiff and the defendant;
of the bodega.
2. There is no labor dispute between them;
Defendant union moved to dismiss the complaint on the following
grounds:
3. Plaintiff's compound is separate and distinct from the interest thereon at legal rate from the commencement of the
compound of the company where the defendant's are employed. action until fully paid, Pl,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs.
Copy of this decision was received by defendants on July 20,
Defendants by way of reply to the abovementioned opposition 1965 and forthwith, defendants filed the notice of appeal on July
argued that even if there was no employer-employee relationship, 26, 1965.
still the Court of First Instance would have no jurisdiction to issue
an injunction, citing several cases holding that there could be a On October 12,1965, Liwayway Publications, Inc. filed with the
labor dispute regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in Supreme Court a petition praying that a writ of attachment be
proximate relation of employer and employee and that peaceful issued on any sum of money which is owing from the company to
picketing is an extension of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the union and to other defendants to be used to satisfy the
the Constitution, a fundamental right granted to labor which
3
judgment in its favor should the same be affirmed by the Supreme
cannot be enjoined. Court.
Since plaintiff averred in its complaint that "it is a second Defendants filed an opposition to the petition for attachment
sublessee of a part of the premises of the Permanent Concrete alleging that even assuming that there is an amount owing to the
Products, Inc. at 1000 Cordeleria Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila from union from the company, such would be in the concept of
Don Ramon Roces, first lessee from the aforementioned uncollected wages due the strikers and, therefore, cannot be
company, defendants contend that plaintiff has no cause of action subject of attachment as provided by Art. 1708 of the New Civil
against them but against Don Ramon Roces under the provisions Code that the laborer's wages shall not be subject to execution or
of Article 1654 of the New Civil Code which obliges the lessor to attachment except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing
maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of and for medical attendance.
the lease for the entire duration of the contract.
The Supreme Court denied the above petition for attachment but
On October 22, 1964, the lower court issued an order denying the without prejudice to the movant seeking remedy in the Court of
motion to dismiss and motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary First Instance.
injunction on the ground that there was no labor dispute between
the plaintiff and defendant of which the Court of Industrial The sole issue raised in the instant appeal is whether or not the
Relations may take cognizance. lower court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction
considering that there was a labor dispute between Permanent
On November 16, 1964, the court, on motion of the plaintiff, Concrete Products, Inc. and appellants for alleged unfair labor
declared defendants in default. Defendants prayed for the lifting practices committed by the former.
of the order of default, which plaintiff opposed. In the order of
December 16, 1964, the court denied the motion to lift the order The first question that strikes Us to be of determinative
of default, and subsequently defendants' motion for significance is whether or not this case involves or has arisen out
reconsideration. Thereafter, the court rendered its decision dated of a labor dispute. If it does, then with certainty, section 9 of
February 16, 1965 which declared permanent the writ of Republic Act 875, the "Industrial Peace Act", would apply. If it
preliminary injunction and ordered the defendants to pay the does not, then the Rules of Court will govern the issuance of the
plaintiff jointly and severally the amount of ?10,152.42 with
writ of preliminary injunction because it will not partake the nature If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed
of a labor injunction which the lower court has no jurisdiction to even in the absence of employer-employee
issue. relationship.
The record before Us reveals that appellant union and its The right is, however, not an absolute one. While
members picketed the gate leading to appellee's bodega. This peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an
gate is about 200 meters from the gate leading to the premises of exercise of free speech, we believe that courts are
the employer of the appellants. Appellee is not in any way related not without power to confine or localize the sphere
to the striking union except for the fact that it is the sublessee of a of communication or the demonstration to the
bodega in the company's compound. The picketers belonging to parties to the labor dispute, including those with
the appellant union had stopped and prohibited the truck of the related interest, and to insulate establishments or
appellee from entering the compound to load newsprint from its persons with no industrial connection or having
bodega, the union members intimidating and threatening with interest totally foreign to the context of the
bodily harm the employees of the appellee who were in the truck. dispute. Thus, the right may be regulated at the
The union members also stopped and prohibited the general instance of third parties or "innocent. bystanders"
manager, personnel manager including the man in-charge of the if it appears that the inevitable result of its
bodega and other employees of the Liwayway Publications, Inc. exercise is to create an impression that a labor
from getting newsprint in said bodega. The business of the dispute with which they have no connection or
appellee is exclusively the publication of the magazines interest exists between them and the picketing
Bannawag Bisaya, Hiligaynon and Liwayway weekly magazines union or constitute an invasion of their rights. In
which has absolutely no relation or connection whatsoever with one case decided by this Court, we upheld a trial
the cause of the strike of the union against their company, much court's injunction prohibiting the union from
less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers. In such blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within
a factual situation, the query to be resolved is whether the the compound of a flour mill with which the union
appellee is a third party or an "innocent bystander" whose right had a dispute. Although sustained on a different
has been invaded and, therefore, entitled to protection by the ground, no connection was found other than their
regular courts. being situated in the same premises. It is to be
noted that in the instances cited, peaceful
At this juncture it is well to cite and stress the pronouncements of picketing has not been totally banned but merely
the Supreme Court on the right to picket. Thus, in the case regulated. And in one American case, a picket by
of Phil. Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Judge a labor union in front of a motion picture theater
Gaudencio Cloribel et al., L-25878, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA with which the union had a labor dispute was
465, 472, the Supreme Court, speaking thru Justice J.B.L. Reyes, enjoined by the court from being extended in front
said: of the main entrance of the building housing the
theater wherein other stores operated by third
The right to picket as a means of communicating persons were located.
the facts of a labor dispute is a phrase of the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.
The same case state clearly and succinctly the rationalization for where We held that "the Court of First Instance cannot take
the court's regulation of the right to picket in the following wise cognizance of an action for injunction where the issue involved is
and manner: interwoven with unfair labor practice cases pending in the Court
of Industrial Relations," nor the rule laid down in Erlanger &
Wellington and Galang are mere 'innocent Galinger, Inc. vs. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Association-
bystanders'. They are entitled to seek protection NATU, G.R. No. L-11907, June 24, 1958,104 Phil. 17, holding that
of their rights from the courts and the courts may, "even if no unfair labor practice suit has been filed at all by any of
accordingly, legally extend the same. Moreover, the parties in the Court of Industrial Relations at the time the
PAFLU's right to peacefully picket METBANK is present petition for injunction was filed in the court below, still the
not curtailed by the injunctions issued by latter court would have no jurisdiction to issue the temporary
respondent judge. The picket is merely regulated restraining order prayed for if it is shown to its satisfaction that the
to protect the rights of third parties. And the labor dispute arose out of unfair labor practices committed by any
reason for this is not far-fetched. If the law fails to of the parties. The parties would still have to institute the proper
afford said protection, men will endeavor to action in the Court of Industrial Relations, and there ask for a
safeguard their rights by their own might, take the temporary restraining order under sec. 9 (d) of the Industrial
law in their own hands, and commit acts which peace Act. "
lead to breaches of the law. 'This should not be
allowed to happen. We cannot agree that the above rules cited by the appellants are
controlling in the instant case for as We said in Phil. Association
It may be conceded that the appellant Union has a labor dispute of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), et at. vs. Tan, 99 Phil. 854, that
with the Permanent Concrete Products company and that the "with regard to activities that may be enjoined, in order to
dispute is pending before the Court of Industrial Relations docket ascertain what court has jurisdiction to issue the injunction, it is
therein as CIR Case No. 156-Inj., Charge 212-ULP and Charge necessary to determine the nature of the controversy, "
No. 1414-M.C. Nonetheless, the rule laid down in the case (emphasis supplied) We find and hold that there is no connection
of National Garment and Textile Workers' Union (PAFLU) vs. between the appellee Liwayway publications, Inc. and the striking
Hon. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-9104, September 10, Union, nor with the company against whom the strikers staged
1956, cited by the appellants as authority holding that "where the the strike, and neither are the acts of the driver of the appellee, its
Court of Industrial Relations has already acquired jurisdiction over general manager, personnel manager, the man in-charge of the
two unfair labor practices cases and much later on as a bodega and other employees of the appellee in reaching the
consequence thereof, the Court of First Instance cannot legally bodega to obtain newsprint therefrom to feed and supply its
issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the picketers. publishing business interwoven with the labor dispute between
Besides, the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations is the striking Union and the Permanent Concrete Products
exclusive. (Sec. 5-a, Republic Act 875)" is not controlling, much company. If there is a connection between appellee publishing
less applicable to the instant case where the facts are essentially company and the Permanent Concrete Products company; it is
and materially different. that both are situated in the same premises, which can hardly be
considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending in the
Neither is the case of SMB Box factory Workers' Union vs. Hon. Court of Industrial Relations between the strikers and their
Gustavo Victoriano, et al. G.R. No. L-12820, Dec. 29, 1957, employer.
The contention of appellants that the court erred in denying their The obligation of the lessor under Art. 1654, New Civil Code, to
motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of
cause of action, is likewise without merit. the lease for the entire duration of the contract arises only when
acts, termed as legal trespass (perturbacion de derecho), disturb,
Article 1654 of the New Civil Code cited by the appellants in dispute, object to, or place difficulties in the way of the lessee's
support of their motion to dismiss, which obliges the lessor, peaceful enjoyment of the premises that in some manner or other
among others, to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and cast doubt upon the right of the lessor by virtue of which the
adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the lessor himself executed the lease, in which case the lessor is
contract, and therefore, the appellee publishing company should obliged to answer for said act of trespass.
have brought its complaint against the first sub-lessee, Don
Ramon Roces, and not against the appellant Union is not in point. The difference between simple trespass (perturbacion de mero
The acts complained of against the striking union members are hecho and legal trespass (perturbacion de derecho) is simply but
properly called mere acts of trespass (perturbacion de mero - clearly stated in Goldstein vs. Roces case, supra, thus:
hecho) such that following the doctrine laid down in Goldstein vs.
Roces, 34 Phil. 562, the lessor shall not be obliged to answer for Briefly, if the act of trespass is not accompanied or
the mere fact of a trespass (perturbacion de mero hecho) made preceded by anything which reveals a really juridic
by a third person in the use of the estate leased but the lessee intention on the part of the trespasser, in such
shag have a direct action against the trespasser. The instant case wise that the lessee can only distinguish the
fags squarely under the provisions of Article 1664 of the New Civil material fact, stripped of all legal form or reasons,
Code which provides as follows: we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de
mero hecho). (pp. 566-567)
Art. 1664. The lessor is not obliged to answer for
a mere act of trespass which a third person may WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision
cause on the use of the thing leased; but the appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against
lessee shall have a direct action against the appellants.
intruder.
SO ORDERED.
There is a mere act of trespass when the third
person claims no right whatever. Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez and Melencio-
Herrera, JJ., concur.
The Goldstein doctrine had been reiterated in Reyes vs. Caltex
(Phil). Inc., 84 Phil. 654; Lo Ching, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al. 81 Phil. 601; Afesa vs. Ayala y Cia 89 Phil. 292; Vda. de
Villaruel et al. vs. Manila Motor Co., Inc., et al. 104 Phil.
926; Heirs of B.A. Crumb, et al. vs. Rodriguez, 105 Phil. 391.
G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974
ZALDIVAR, J.:p
Appeal to this Court on purely questions of law from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 58894.
civil right to join associations for purposes not contrary to law has impair the obligation of contracts for said law formed part of, and
to be determined under the Act by his affiliation with a religious was incorporated into, the terms of the closed shop
sect; that conversely, if a worker has to sever his religious agreement; that the Act does not violate the establishment of
15
connection with a sect that prohibits membership in a labor religion clause or separation of Church and State, for Congress,
organization in order to be able to join a labor organization, said in enacting said law, merely accommodated the religious needs of
Act would violate religious freedom. 9
those workers whose religion prohibits its members from joining
labor unions, and balanced the collective rights of organized labor
Fifthly, the Union contended that Republic Act No. 3350, violates with the constitutional right of an individual to freely exercise his
the "equal protection of laws" clause of the Constitution, it being a chosen religion; that the constitutional right to the free exercise of
discriminately legislation, inasmuch as by exempting from the one's religion has primacy and preference over union security
operation of closed shop agreement the members of the "Iglesia measures which are merely contractual ; that said Act does not
16
ni Cristo", it has granted said members undue advantages over violate the constitutional provision of equal protection, for the
their fellow workers, for while the Act exempts them from union classification of workers under the Act depending on their
obligation and liability, it nevertheless entitles them at the same religious tenets is based on substantial distinction, is germane to
time to the enjoyment of all concessions, benefits and other the purpose of the law, and applies to all the members of a given
emoluments that the union might secure from the employer. 10 class; that said Act, finally, does not violate the social justice
17
justice.11
liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor been predicated on laws which, without destroying contracts,
unions. If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members of derogate from substantial contractual rights. 23
said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they
can do so. If in deference and fealty to their religious faith, they It should not be overlooked, however, that the prohibition to
refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce them impair the obligation of contracts is not absolute and unqualified.
to join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and The prohibition is general, affording a broad outline and requiring
neither may the employer or labor union compel them to join. construction to fill in the details. The prohibition is not to be read
Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not violate the with literal exactness like a mathematical formula, for it prohibits
constitutional provision on freedom of association. unreasonable impairment only. In spite of the constitutional
24
with the Company, by virtue of which "membership in the union contracts in order to fix the obligations as between the parties, but
was required as a condition for employment for all permanent the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also
employees workers". This agreement was already in existence at read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order. All contracts
the time Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted on June 18, 1961, made with reference to any matter that is subject to regulation
and it cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been incorporated under the police power must be understood as made in reference
to the possible exercise of that power. Otherwise, important and
26
can be sustained when it is enacted for the promotion of the
valuable reforms may be precluded by the simple device of general good of the people, and when the means adopted to
entering into contracts for the purpose of doing that which secure that end are reasonable. Both the end sought and the
otherwise may be prohibited. The policy of protecting contracts means adopted must be legitimate, i.e., within the scope of the
against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a reserved power of the state construed in harmony with the
government by virtue of which contractual relations are constitutional limitation of that power.
30
religious sects from coverage of union security agreements — is the free exercise of one's chosen form of religion within limits of
reasonable. utmost amplitude. It has been said that the religion clauses of the
Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest possible
It may not be amiss to point out here that the free exercise of liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his
religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he
of conflict, the latter must, therefore, yield to the former. The believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and
Supreme Court of the United States has also declared on several with the common good. Any legislation whose effect or purpose
36
occasions that the rights in the First Amendment, which include is to impede the observance of one or all religions, or to
freedom of religion, enjoy a preferred position in the constitutional discriminate invidiously between the religions, is invalid, even
system. Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a
33
though the burden may be characterized as being only
fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred
34
indirect. But if the stage regulates conduct by enacting, within its
37
position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, power, a general law which has for its purpose and effect to
must yield to freedom of religion. It is only where unavoidably advance the state's secular goals, the statute is valid despite its
necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the indirect burden on religious observance, unless the state can
security and welfare of the community that infringement of accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden. 38
clause of the Constitution. Constitution has been interpreted to require that religious
exercise be preferentially aided. 44
extent economic insecurity due to unemployment, which is a may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional. 47
requires a positive act. Republic Act No. 3350 only exempts legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is
members with such religious affiliation from the coverage of directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.
closed shop agreements. So, under this Act, a religious objector
is not required to do a positive act — to exercise the right to join The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows
or to resign from the union. He is exempted ipso jure without classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of
need of any positive act on his part. A conscientious religious knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or
objector need not perform a positive act or exercise the right of practice because they agree with one another in certain
resigning from the labor union — he is exempted from the particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The
52
coverage of any closed shop agreement that a labor union may very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes
have entered into. How then can there be a religious test required without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner
for the exercise of a right when no right need be exercised? determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a
53
result, which is lawful in itself, by discovering or following a legal Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or
way to do it.49
distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis
and is not palpably arbitrary.55
5. Appellant avers as its fifth ground that Republic Act No. 3350 is
a discriminatory legislation, inasmuch as it grants to the members In the exercise of its power to make classifications for the
of certain religious sects undue advantages over other workers, purpose of enacting laws over matters within its jurisdiction, the
state is recognized as enjoying a wide range of discretion. It is
56
irksomeness. Usually, a strong and passionate desire is involved
not necessary that the classification be based on scientific or in a religious belief. To certain persons, no single factor of their
marked differences of things or in their relation. Neither is it
57
experience is more important to them than their religion, or their
necessary that the classification be made with mathematical not having any religion. Because of differences in religious belief
nicety. Hence legislative classification may in many cases
58
and sentiments, a very poor person may consider himself better
properly rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection
59
than the rich, and the man who even lacks the necessities of life
guaranty does not preclude the legislature from recognizing may be more cheerful than the one who has all possible luxuries.
degrees of evil or harm, and legislation is addressed to evils as Due to their religious beliefs people, like the martyrs, became
they may appear. resigned to the inevitable and accepted cheerfully even the most
painful and excruciating pains. Because of differences in religious
We believe that Republic Act No. 3350 satisfies the beliefs, the world has witnessed turmoil, civil strife, persecution,
aforementioned requirements. The Act classifies employees and hatred, bloodshed and war, generated to a large extent by
workers, as to the effect and coverage of union shop security members of sects who were intolerant of other religious beliefs.
agreements, into those who by reason of their religious beliefs The classification, introduced by Republic Act No. 3350,
and convictions cannot sign up with a labor union, and those therefore, rests on substantial distinctions.
whose religion does not prohibit membership in labor unions. Tile
classification rests on real or substantial, not merely imaginary or The classification introduced by said Act is also germane to its
whimsical, distinctions. There is such real distinction in the purpose. The purpose of the law is precisely to avoid those who
beliefs, feelings and sentiments of employees. Employees do not cannot, because of their religious belief, join labor unions, from
believe in the same religious faith and different religions differ in being deprived of their right to work and from being dismissed
their dogmas and cannons. Religious beliefs, manifestations and from their work because of union shop security agreements.
practices, though they are found in all places, and in all times,
take so many varied forms as to be almost beyond imagination. Republic Act No. 3350, furthermore, is not limited in its application
There are many views that comprise the broad spectrum of to conditions existing at the time of its enactment. The law does
religious beliefs among the people. There are diverse manners in not provide that it is to be effective for a certain period of time
which beliefs, equally paramount in the lives of their possessors, only. It is intended to apply for all times as long as the conditions
may be articulated. Today the country is far more heterogenous in to which the law is applicable exist. As long as there are closed
religion than before, differences in religion do exist, and these shop agreements between an employer and a labor union, and
differences are important and should not be ignored. there are employees who are prohibited by their religion from
affiliating with labor unions, their exemption from the coverage of
Even from the phychological point of view, the classification is said agreements continues.
based on real and important differences. Religious beliefs are not
mere beliefs, mere ideas existing only in the mind, for they carry Finally, the Act applies equally to all members of said religious
with them practical consequences and are the motives of certain sects; this is evident from its provision. The fact that the law
rules. of human conduct and the justification of certain grants a privilege to members of said religious sects cannot by
acts. Religious sentiment makes a man view things and events
60
itself render the Act unconstitutional, for as We have adverted to,
in their relation to his God. It gives to human life its distinctive the Act only restores to them their freedom of association which
character, its tone, its happiness or unhappiness its enjoyment or closed shop agreements have taken away, and puts them in the
same plane as the other workers who are not prohibited by their Iglesia ni Cristo, who are also component elements of society, for
religion from joining labor unions. The circumstance, that the it insures security in their employment, notwithstanding their
other employees, because they are differently situated, are not failure to join a labor union having a closed shop agreement with
granted the same privilege, does not render the law the employer. The Act also advances the proper economic and
unconstitutional, for every classification allowed by the social equilibrium between labor unions and employees who
Constitution by its nature involves inequality. cannot join labor unions, for it exempts the latter from the
compelling necessity of joining labor unions that have closed
The mere fact that the legislative classification may result in shop agreements and equalizes, in so far as opportunity to work
actual inequality is not violative of the right to equal protection, for is concerned, those whose religion prohibits membership in labor
every classification of persons or things for regulation by law unions with those whose religion does not prohibit said
produces inequality in some degree, but the law is not thereby membership. Social justice does not imply social equality,
rendered invalid. A classification otherwise reasonable does not because social inequality will always exist as long as social
offend the constitution simply because in practice it results in relations depend on personal or subjective proclivities. Social
some inequality. Anent this matter, it has been said that
61 justice does not require legal equality because legal equality,
whenever it is apparent from the scope of the law that its object is being a relative term, is necessarily premised on differentiations
for the benefit of the public and the means by which the benefit is based on personal or natural conditions. Social justice
65
to be obtained are of public character, the law will be upheld even guarantees equality of opportunity , and this is precisely what
66
though incidental advantage may occur to individuals beyond Republic Act No. 3350 proposes to accomplish — it gives
those enjoyed by the general public. 62 laborers, irrespective of their religious scrupples, equal
opportunity for work.
6. Appellant's further contention that Republic Act No. 3350
violates the constitutional provision on social justice is also 7. As its last ground, appellant contends that the amendment
baseless. Social justice is intended to promote the welfare of all introduced by Republic Act No. 3350 is not called for — in other
the people. Republic Act No. 3350 promotes that welfare insofar
63 words, the Act is not proper, necessary or desirable. Anent this
as it looks after the welfare of those who, because of their matter, it has been held that a statute which is not necessary is
religious belief, cannot join labor unions; the Act prevents their not, for that reason, unconstitutional; that in determining the
being deprived of work and of the means of livelihood. In constitutional validity of legislation, the courts are unconcerned
determining whether any particular measure is for public with issues as to the necessity for the enactment of the legislation
advantage, it is not necessary that the entire state be directly in question. Courts do inquire into the wisdom of
67
benefited — it is sufficient that a portion of the state be benefited laws. Moreover, legislatures, being chosen by the people, are
68
Social justice also means the adoption by the Government of entertained by appellant that unless the Act is declared
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all component unconstitutional, employers will prefer employing members of
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper religious sects that prohibit their members from joining labor
economic and social equilibrium in the inter-relations of the unions, and thus be a fatal blow to unionism. We do not agree.
members of the community. Republic Act No. 3350 insures
64 The threat to unionism will depend on the number of employees
economic stability to the members of a religious sect, like the who are members of the religious sects that control the demands
of the labor market. But there is really no occasion now to go dispute to which it is a party, on the ground only
further and anticipate problems We cannot judge with the material that such act induces some other person to break
now before Us. At any rate, the validity of a statute is to be a contract of employment or that it is in restraint of
determined from its general purpose and its efficacy to trade or interferes with the trade, business or
accomplish the end desired, not from its effects on a particular employment of some other person or with the right
case. The essential basis for the exercise of power, and not a
70
of some other person to dispose of his capital or
mere incidental result arising from its exertion, is the criterion by labor. (Emphasis supplied)
which the validity of a statute is to be measured. 71
action involves an industrial dispute wherein the Union was a of seeking it is the labor dispute itself. It being the labor dispute
party, and said Union merely acted in the exercise of its rights itself, that very same act of the Union in asking the employer to
under the union shop provision of its existing collective bargaining dismiss Appellee cannot be "an act done ... in furtherance of an
contract with the Company; that said order also contravenes industrial dispute". The mere fact that appellant is a labor union
Article 2208 of the Civil Code; that, furthermore, Appellee was does not necessarily mean that all its acts are in furtherance of an
never actually dismissed by the defendant Company and did not industrial dispute. Appellant Union, therefore, cannot invoke in
75
EN BANC
HILADO, J.:
The facts:
DECISION
Petitioner, a corporation organized and existing
GARCIA, J.: under Philippines laws, is engaged in the
business of freight forwarding. As such, it is
contracted by clients to pick-up, unpack,
Via this petition for review on certiorari under consolidate, deliver, transport and distribute all
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Yusen kinds of cargoes, acts as cargo or freight
Air and Sea Service Philippines, Incorporated, accommodation and enters into charter parties
urges us to annul and set aside the following for the carriage of all kinds of cargoes or freight.
orders of the Regional Trial Court at Paraaque On August 16, 1993, petitioner hired respondent
City, Branch 258, in its Civil Case No. 02-0063, to as branch manager in its Cebu Office. Later,
wit: petitioner reclassified respondents position to
that of Division Manager, which position
1. Order dated March 20,
2002, dismissing, on ground of
[1] respondent held until his resignation on February
lack of jurisdiction, petitioners 1, 2002.
complaint for injunction and
damages with prayer for a
Immediately after his resignation, engage directly or indirectly
respondent started working for Aspac in any undertaking or activity
prejudicial to the interests of
International, a corporation engaged in the same
the company or to the
line of business as that of petitioner. performance of his/her job or
work assignments. The same
On February 11, 2002, in the Regional Trial Court provision will be
at Paraaque City, petitioner filed against implemented for a period of
respondent a complaint[3] for injunction and two (2) years from the date
damages with prayer for a temporary restraining of an employees
resignation, termination or
order. Thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 02-
separation from the
0063 which was raffled to Branch 258 of the company.
court, the complaint alleged, inter alia, as
follows: 8. That in clear violation and breach
of his undertaking and agreement
7. That [respondent] duly signed an with the policies of [petitioner],
undertaking to abide by the policies [respondent] joined Aspac
of the [Petitioner] which includes International, within two years from
the provision on the employees [his] date of resignation, whose
responsibility and obligation in business is directly in conflict with
cases of conflict of interest, which that of [petitioner]. (Underscoring
reads: supplied; words in bracket ours).
Upon motion of the SSS on February 6,1989, the Court issued a 1. Do the employees of the SSS have the right to strike?
temporary restraining order enjoining the petitioners from staging
another strike or from pursuing the notice of strike they filed with 2. Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the case
the Department of Labor and Employment on January 25, 1989 initiated by the SSS and to enjoin the strikers from continuing with
and to maintain the status quo [Rollo, pp. 151-152]. the strike and to order them to return to work?
The Court, taking the comment as answer, and noting the reply These shall be discussed and resolved seriatim
and supplemental reply filed by petitioners, considered the issues
joined and the case submitted for decision. I
The position of the petitioners is that the Regional Trial Court had The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and Human
no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to issue Rights, provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all
the restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction, as workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
jurisdiction lay with the Department of Labor and Employment or negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right
the National Labor Relations Commission, since the case to strike in accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. 31].
involves a labor dispute.
By itself, this provision would seem to recognize the right of all
On the other hand, the SSS advances the contrary view, on the workers and employees, including those in the public sector, to
ground that the employees of the SSS are covered by civil strike. But the Constitution itself fails to expressly confirm this
service laws and rules and regulations, not the Labor Code, impression, for in the Sub-Article on the Civil Service
therefore they do not have the right to strike. Since neither the Commission, it provides, after defining the scope of the civil
DOLE nor the NLRC has jurisdiction over the dispute, the service as "all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and
Regional Trial Court may enjoin the employees from striking. agencies of the Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters," that "[t]he right to
In dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition with self-organization shall not be denied to government employees"
preliminary injunction filed by petitioners, the Court of Appeals [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(l) and (50)]. Parenthetically, the Bill of Rights
held that since the employees of the SSS, are government also provides that "[tlhe right of the people, including those
employees, they are not allowed to strike, and may be enjoined employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
by the Regional Trial Court, which had jurisdiction over the SSS' associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall
complaint for damages, from continuing with their strike. not abridged" [Art. III, Sec. 8]. Thus, while there is no question
that the Constitution recognizes the right of government
Thus, the sequential questions to be resolved by the Court in employees to organize, it is silent as to whether such recognition
deciding whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that also includes the right to strike.
Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law becomes resolution, it carries with it the right to strike. That
helpful in understanding the meaning of these provisions. A is a different matter. As a matter of fact, that
reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission that subject is now being discussed in the Committee
drafted the 1987 Constitution would show that in recognizing the on Social Justice because we are trying to find a
right of government employees to organize, the commissioners solution to this problem. We know that this
intended to limit the right to the formation of unions or problem exist; that the moment we allow anybody
associations only, without including the right to strike. in the government to strike, then what will happen
if the members of the Armed Forces will go on
Thus, Commissioner Eulogio R. Lerum, one of the sponsors of strike? What will happen to those people trying to
the provision that "[tlhe right to self-organization shall not be protect us? So that is a matter of discussion in the
denied to government employees" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(5)], in Committee on Social Justice. But, I repeat, the
answer to the apprehensions expressed by Commissioner right to form an organization does not carry with it
Ambrosio B. Padilla, Vice-President of the Commission, the right to strike. [Record of the Constitutional
explained: Commission, vol. 1, p. 569].
MR. LERUM. I think what I will try to say will not It will be recalled that the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. No. 875),
take that long. When we proposed this which was repealed by the Labor Code (P.D. 442) in 1974,
amendment providing for self-organization of expressly banned strikes by employees in the Government,
government employees, it does not mean that including instrumentalities exercising governmental functions, but
because they have the right to organize, they also excluding entities entrusted with proprietary functions:
have the right to strike. That is a different matter.
We are only talking about organizing, uniting as a .Sec. 11. Prohibition Against Strikes in the
union. With regard to the right to strike, everyone Government. — The terms and conditions of
will remember that in the Bill of Rights, there is a employment in the Government, including any
provision that the right to form associations or political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, are
societies whose purpose is not contrary to law governed by law and it is declared to be the policy
shall not be abridged. Now then, if the purpose of of this Act that employees therein shall not strike
the state is to prohibit the strikes coming from for the purpose of securing changes or
employees exercising government functions, that modification in their terms and conditions of
could be done because the moment that is employment. Such employees may belong to any
prohibited, then the union which will go on strike labor organization which does not impose the
will be an illegal union. And that provision is obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided,
carried in Republic Act 875. In Republic Act 875, however, That this section shall apply only to
workers, including those from the government- employees employed in governmental functions
owned and controlled, are allowed to organize but and not those employed in proprietary functions of
they are prohibited from striking. So, the fear of the Government including but not limited to
our honorable Vice- President is unfounded. It governmental corporations.
does not mean that because we approve this
No similar provision is found in the Labor Code, although at one But are employees of the SSS covered by the prohibition against
time it recognized the right of employees of government strikes?
corporations established under the Corporation Code to organize
and bargain collectively and those in the civil service to "form The Court is of the considered view that they are. Considering
organizations for purposes not contrary to law" [Art. 244, before that under the 1987 Constitution "[t]he civil service embraces all
its amendment by B.P. Blg. 70 in 1980], in the same breath it branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
provided that "[t]he terms and conditions of employment of all Government, including government-owned or controlled
government employees, including employees of government corporations with original charters" [Art. IX(B), Sec. .2(l) see also
owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the Civil Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees in the civil service
Service Law, rules and regulations" [now Art. 276]. are denominated as "government employees"] and that the SSS
Understandably, the Labor Code is silent as to whether or not is one such government-controlled corporation with an original
government employees may strike, for such are excluded from its charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees
coverage [Ibid]. But then the Civil Service Decree [P.D. No. 807], are part of the civil service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870
is equally silent on the matter. & 70295, November 24,1988] and are covered by the Civil
Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. This
On June 1, 1987, to implement the constitutional guarantee of the being the case, the strike staged by the employees of the SSS
right of government employees to organize, the President issued was illegal.
E.O. No. 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the
right to organize of government employees. In Section 14 thereof, The statement of the Court in Alliance of Government Workers v.
it is provided that "[t]he Civil Service law and rules governing Minister of Labor and Employment [G.R. No. 60403, August 3,
concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be 1:983, 124 SCRA 11 is relevant as it furnishes the rationale for
observed, subject to any legislation that may be enacted by distinguishing between workers in the private sector and
Congress." The President was apparently referring to government employees with regard to the right to strike:
Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service
Commission under date April 21, 1987 which, "prior to the The general rule in the past and up to the present
enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by is that 'the terms and conditions of employment in
government employees ... enjoins under pain of administrative the Government, including any political
sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging subdivision or instrumentality thereof are
strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms governed by law" (Section 11, the Industrial Peace
of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or Act, R.A. No. 875, as amended and Article 277,
disruption of public service." The air was thus cleared of the the Labor Code, P.D. No. 442, as
confusion. At present, in the absence of any legislation allowing amended). Since the terms and conditions of
government employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, government employment are fixed by law,
or regulating the exercise of the right, they are prohibited from government workers cannot use the same
striking, by express provision of Memorandum Circular No. 6 and weapons employed by workers in the private
as implied in E.O. No. 180. [At this juncture, it must be stated that sector to secure concessions from their
the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 6 is not at issue]. employers. The principle behind labor unionism in
private industry is that industrial peace cannot be
secured through compulsion by law. Relations E.O. No. 180, which provides guidelines for the exercise of the
between private employers and their employees right to organize of government employees, while clinging to the
rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to same philosophy, has, however, relaxed the rule to allow
the minimum requirements of wage laws and negotiation where the terms and conditions of employment
other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and involved are not among those fixed by law. Thus:
conditions of employment in the unionized private
sector are settled through the process of collective .SECTION 13. Terms and conditions of
bargaining. In government employment, however, employment or improvements thereof, except
it is the legislature and, where properly given those that are fixed by law, may be the subject of
delegated power, the administrative heads of negotiations between duly recognized employees'
government which fix the terms and conditions of organizations and appropriate government
employment. And this is effected through statutes authorities.
or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations,
not through collective bargaining agreements. [At The same executive order has also provided for the general
p. 13; Emphasis supplied]. mechanism for the settlement of labor disputes in the public
sector to wit:
Apropos is the observation of the Acting Commissioner of Civil
Service, in his position paper submitted to the 1971 Constitutional .SECTION 16. The Civil Service and labor laws
Convention, and quoted with approval by the Court in Alliance, to and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be
wit: followed in the resolution of complaints,
grievances and cases involving government
It is the stand, therefore, of this Commission that employees. In case any dispute remains
by reason of the nature of the public employer and unresolved after exhausting all the available
the peculiar character of the public service, it must remedies under existing laws and procedures, the
necessarily regard the right to strike given to parties may jointly refer the dispute to the [Public
unions in private industry as not applying to public Sector Labor- Management] Council for
employees and civil service employees. It has appropriate action.
been stated that the Government, in contrast to
the private employer, protects the interest of all Government employees may, therefore, through their unions or
people in the public service, and that accordingly, associations, either petition the Congress for the betterment of
such conflicting interests as are present in private the terms and conditions of employment which are within the
labor relations could not exist in the relations ambit of legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government
between government and those whom they agencies for the improvement of those which are not fixed by law.
employ. [At pp. 16-17; also quoted in National If there be any unresolved grievances, the dispute may be
Housing Corporation v. Juco, G.R. No. 64313, referred to the Public Sector Labor - Management Council for
January 17,1985,134 SCRA 172,178-179]. appropriate action. But employees in the civil service may not
resort to strikes, walk-outs and other temporary work stoppages,
like workers in the private sector, to pressure the Govemment to
accede to their demands. As now provided under Sec. 4, Rule III Neither could the court a quo be accused of imprudence or
of the Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right overzealousness, for in fact it had proceeded with caution. Thus,
of Government- Employees to Self- Organization, which took after issuing a writ of injunction enjoining the continuance of the
effect after the instant dispute arose, "[t]he terms and conditions strike to prevent any further disruption of public service, the
of employment in the government, including any political respondent judge, in the same order, admonished the parties to
subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government- owned refer the unresolved controversies emanating from their
and controlled corporations with original charters are governed by employer- employee relationship to the Public Sector Labor -
law and employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of Management Council for appropriate action [Rollo, p. 86].
securing changes thereof."
III
II
In their "Petition/Application for Preliminary and Mandatory
The strike staged by the employees of the SSS belonging to Injunction," and reiterated in their reply and supplemental reply,
petitioner union being prohibited by law, an injunction may be petitioners allege that the SSS unlawfully withheld bonuses and
issued to restrain it. benefits due the individual petitioners and they pray that the Court
issue a writ of preliminary prohibitive and mandatory injunction to
It is futile for the petitioners to assert that the subject labor dispute restrain the SSS and its agents from withholding payment thereof
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC and, hence, the and to compel the SSS to pay them. In their supplemental reply,
Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of petitioners annexed an order of the Civil Service Commission,
injunction enjoining the continuance of the strike. The Labor Code dated May 5, 1989, which ruled that the officers of the SSSEA
itself provides that terms and conditions of employment of who are not preventively suspended and who are reporting for
government employees shall be governed by the Civil Service work pending the resolution of the administrative cases against
Law, rules and regulations [Art. 276]. More importantly, E.O. No. them are entitled to their salaries, year-end bonuses and other
180 vests the Public Sector Labor - Management Council with fringe benefits and affirmed the previous order of the Merit
jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government Systems Promotion Board.
employees [Sec. 16]. Clearly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction over
the dispute. The matter being extraneous to the issues elevated to this Court,
it is Our view that petitioners' remedy is not to petition this Court
This being the case, the Regional Trial Court was not precluded, to issue an injunction, but to cause the execution of the aforesaid
in the exercise of its general jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129, as order, if it has already become final.
amended, from assuming jurisdiction over the SSS's complaint for
damages and issuing the injunctive writ prayed for therein. Unlike WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the
the NLRC, the Public Sector Labor - Management Council has Court of Appeals, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED
not been granted by law authority to issue writs of injunction in and the decision of the appellate court dated March 9, 1988 in
labor disputes within its jurisdiction. Thus, since it is the Council, CA-G.R. SP No. 13192 is AFFIRMED. Petitioners'
and not the NLRC, that has jurisdiction over the instant labor "Petition/Application for Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction"
dispute, resort to the general courts of law for the issuance of a dated December 13,1988 is DENIED.
writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate.
SO ORDERED.