Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1206 October 30, 1947
THE MN!L ELECTR!C COMPN", petitioner,
vs.
THE PU#L!C UT!L!T!ES EMPLO"EES$ SSOC!T!ON, respondent.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for petitioner.
Ferdinand E. Marcos for respondent.
Eulogio R. Lerum as amicus curriae.

%ER!, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court interposed by the
petitioner Manila Electric Copany a!ainst the decision of "uly #$, #%4& of the Court of
'ndustrial Relations, (hich reads as follo(s)
Althou!h the practice of the copany, accordin! to the anifestations of
counsel for said copany, has been to !rant one day vacation(ith pay to every
(or*in!an (ho had (or*ed for seven consecutivedays includin! +undays,
the Court considers ,ustified the oppositionpresented by the (or*in!en to the
effect that they need +undays andholidays for the observance of their reli!ion
and for rest. The Court,therefore, orders the respondent copany to pay $-
per cent increasefor overtie (or* done on ordinary days and $- per cent
increase for (or* done durin! +undays and le!al holidays irrespective of the
nuberof days they (or* durin! the (ee*.
The appellant contends that the said decision of the Court of 'ndustrialRelations is
a!ainst the provision of section 4, Coon(ealth Act No. 444, (hich reads as follo(s)
No person, fir, or corporation, business establishent or place or center of
labor shall copel an eployee or laborer to (or* durin! +undays and le!al
holidays, unless he is paid an additionalsu of at least t(enty.five per centu
of his re!ular reuneration) Provided, however, Thast this prohibition shall not
apply to publicutilities perforin! soe public service such as supplyin!
!as,electricity, po(er, (ater, or providin! eans of transportationor
counication.
After a careful consideration of the issue involved in this appeal, (e are of the opinion
and so hold that the decision of the Court of 'ndustrial Relations is erroneous od
contrary to the clear and e/press provision of the above 0uoted provisions. The po(er
of theCourt to settle industrial disputes bet(een capital and labor, (hich include the
fi/in! of (a!es of eployees or laborers, !ranted by the !eneral provisions of section #
of Coon(ealth Act No. #-1, has beenrestricted by the above 0uoted special
provisions of Coon(ealth ActNo. 444, in the sense that public utilities supplyin!
electricity,!as, po(er, (ater, or providin! eans of transportation or counication
ay copel their eployees or laborers to (or* durin!+undays and le!al holidays
(ithout payin! the an additional copensation of not less than 2$ per cent of their
re!ular reuneration on said days.
+ince the provisions of the above 0uoted section 4, are plain and unabi!uous and
convey a clear and definite eanin!, there is no need of resortin! to the rules of
statutory interpretation orconstruction in order to deterine the intention of the
3e!islature.+aid section # consists of t(o parts) the first, (hich is the enactentclause,
prohibits a person, fir or corporation, business establishent,or place or center of
labor fro copellin! an eployee or laborer to(or* durin! +undays and le!al
holidays, unless the forer pays thelatter an additional su of at least t(enty five per
centu of his re!ular reuneration4 and the second part, (hich is an
e/ception,e/epts public utilities perforin! soe public service, such assupplyin!
!as, electricity, po(er, (ater or providin! eans oftransportation or counication,
fro the prohibition establishedin the enactent clause. As the appellant is a public
utility that supplies the electricity and provides eans of transportation to the public, it is
evident that the appellant is e/ept fro the 0ualifiedprohibition established in the
enactent clause, and ay copel its eployees or laborers to (or* durin! +undays
and le!al holidays (ithout payin! the said e/tra copensation.
To hold that the e/ception or second part of section 4, Coon(ealthAct No. 444, only
e/epts public utilities entioned therein fro the prohibition to copel eployees or
laborers to (or* durin! +undaysand le!al holidays, but not fro the obli!ation to pay
the an e/traor additional copensation for copellin! the to (or* durin! thosedays,
is to a*e the e/ception eanin!less or a superfluity, thatis, an e/ception to a !eneral
rule that does not e/ist, because theprohibition in the enactent clause is not an
absolute prohibitionto copel a laborer or eployee to (or* durin! +undays and le!al
holidays. The prohibition to copel a laborer or eployee to (or*durin! those days is
0ualified by the clause 5unless he is paid anadditional su of at least t(enty five per
centu of his re!ular reuneration,5 (hich is inseparable fro the prohibition
(hichthey 0ualify and of (hich they are a part and parcel. The secondportion of section
# is in reality an e/ception and not a provisoalthou!h it is introduced by the (ord
1
5provided54 and it is eleentalthat an e/ception ta*es out of an enactent soethin!
(hich (ouldother(ise be part of the sub,ect atter of it.
To construe section 4, Coon(ealth Act No. 444, as e/eptin! public utilities, li*e the
appellant, fro the obli!ation to pay the additional reuneration re0uired by said
section 4 should they copel their eployees or laborers to (or* on +undays and
le!alholidays, (ould not a*e such e/ception a class le!islation, violative of the
constitutional !uaranty of e0ual protectionof the la(s 6section # 7#8 Art. ''' of our
Constitution9. :or itis a (ell.settled rule in constitutional la( that a le!islation (hich
affects (ith e0ual force all persons of the sae class and notthose of another, is not a
class le!islation and does not infrin!esaid constitutional !uaranty of e0ual protection of
the la(s, if thedivision into classes is not arbitrary and is based on differences(hich are
apparent and reasonable. 6Ma!onn vs. 'llinois Trust +avin!s Ban*, #;- N. +., 2<1, 2%44
+tate vs. =arbros*i, ### 'o(a, 4%&4 $& 3. R. A., $;-.9 And it is evident that the division
ade by section 4, of Coon(ealth Act No. 444, of persons, firs, and corporations
into t(o classes) one coposed of public utilities perforin! soepublic service such
as supplyin! !as, electricity, po(er, (ater orprovidin! eans of transportation4 and
another coposed of persons,firs, and corporations (hich are not public utilities and
do notperfor said public service , is not arbitrary and is based ondifferences (hich are
apparent and reasonable.
The division is not arbitrary, and the basis thereof is reasonable. Public utilities
e/epted fro the prohibition set forth in the enactent clause of section 4,
Coon(ealth Act No. 444, are re0uired to perfor a continuous service includin!
+undays andle!al holidays to the public, since the public !ood so deands,and are not
allo(ed to collect an e/tra char!e for services perfored on those days4 (hile the
others are not re0uired to do so and are free to operate or not their shops, business, or
industries on +undays and le!al holidays. 'f they operate andcopel their laborers to
(or* on those days it is but ,ust andnatural that they should pay an e/tra copensation
to the, because it is to be presued that they can a*e oney or business by
operatin! on those days even if they have to pay such e/tra reuneration. 't (ould be
unfair for the la( to copel publicutilities li*e the appellant to pay an additional or e/tra
copensation to laborers (ho they have to copel to (or* durin!+undays and le!al
holidays, in order to perfor a continuous service to the public. To re0uire public utilities
perforin!service to do so, (ould be tantaount to penali>e the forperforin! public
service durin! said days in copliance (iththe re0uireent of the la( and public
interest.
The conclusion on (hich the dissentin! opinion is based, (hich is alsosubstantially the
basis of the resolution of the lo(er court, is that 5As to the 7referrin! to public utilities
li*e the petitioner8 section4 of Coon(ealth Act No. 444 ay be considered as not
havin! been enacted at all. . . . Therefore, (hen there is a labor dispute as in the
present case, and the dispute is subitted to the Court of 'ndustrial Relations for
decision or settleent, the court is free to provide(hat it ay dee ,ust and ore
beneficial to the interested parties,and that freedo to settle and decide the case
certainly includesthe po(er to !rant additional copensation to (or*ers (ho (or*
on+undays and holidays. The !eneral po(er !ranted by section #, 4, and#1 of
Coon(ealth Act No. #-1, are not affected in any (ay or senseby section 4 of
Coon(ealth Act No. 444.5
This conclusion finds no support in la(, reason or lo!ic. 't is a (ell settled rule of
statutory construction adopted by courts of last resort in the +tates that if one statute
enacts soe thin! in !eneral ters,and after(ards another statute is passed on the
sae sub,ect, (hichalthou!h e/pressed in affirative lan!ua!e introduces special
conditions or restrictions, the subse0uent statute (ill usually be considered asrepealin!
by iplication the forer re!ardin! the atter covered by the subse0uent act4 and ore
specially so (hen the latter act is e/pressed in ne!ative ters , as (here for e/aple it
prohibits a certain thin! for bein! done, or (here it declares that a !iven act shall be
perfored in a certain anner and not other(ise. 6See Blac* on 'nterpretation of 3a(s,
2d ed., p. 1$4, and +utherland, +tatutory Construction, 1d ed., ?ol. #, section #%22, and
cases therein cited.9
'n accordance (ith this rule, the provision of Coon(ealth Act No. #-1 (hich confers
upon the Court of 'ndustrial Relations po(er to settle dispute bet(een eployers and
eployees in !eneral, includin! those relatin! to copulsion of laborers to (or* on
+undays and le!alholidays and additional copensation for those (or*in! on those
days,should be considered as ipliedly repealed by section 4 of Act No. 444,(hich
liits or restricts the iniu of the additional copensationand specifies the persons,
firs or corporation (ho ay be re0uered to pay said copensation. That is, that the
Court of 'ndustrial Relations ay, under the provision of said section 4, order a person,
fir orcorporation or business establishent or place or center of labor (hocopel an
eployee or laborer to (or* on +undays and le!al holidays,to pay hi an additional
copensation of at least 2$ per centu of his re!ular reuneration4 but said court can
not re0uire public utilities perforin! public service entioned therein to pay saide/tra
copensation to laborers and eployees re0uired by the to(or* on +undays and
le!al holidays, because the necessity of publicservice so re0uires.lawphil.net
't is evident that the principal purpose of the 3e!islature in enactin!said section 4, is not
only to restrict the !eneral po(er of the Court of 'ndustrial Relations !ranted by Act No.
#-1, to fi/ the iniuadditional copensation (hich an eployer ay be re0uired to
pay a laborer copelled to (or* on those days, but principally to e/eptpublic utilities
affected (ith public interest, fro the payent ofsuch additional copensation. 'f it
(ere the intention of the la(a*ersin enactin! section 4 of the Act No. 444 to fi/ the
liit of the iniu of additional copensation of laborers (or*in! on those days,
(ithoute/eptin! the public utilities, that is, leavin! intact the !eneral po(er of the court
to re0uire the public utilities to pay said additional copensation, the la( (ould have
only provided, in substance, that alleployers are prohibited fro copellin! their
2
laborers to (or* on+undays and le!al holidays (ithout payin! the an additional
copensationof not less than $- per cent of their re!ular reuneration.
That the intention of the 3e!islature is to e/ept the public utilitiesunder consideration
fro the prohibition set forth in the enactentclause of section 4, Act No. 444, is
supported by the provision ofsection #% of Act No. #-1. As aended this section
provides 5that with eception of emplo!ers engaged in the operation of pu"lic services
orin the "usiness coupled with a pu"lic interest, eployers (ill notbe allo(ed to en!a!e
the services of the stri*e brea*ers (ithin fifteendays after the declaration of the stri*e4
(hich sho(s a contrario sensu that public utilities perforin! public services are
peritted to en!a!e the services of stri*e brea*ers (ithin fifteen days, that
is,iediately upon the declaration of the stri*e. The sae public interest, the reason of
the e/ception in the above 0uoted provision, underlies the e/ception provided in section
4, of Act No. 444.
Therefore, the rulin! of the Court of 'ndustrial Relations 0uoted in the first part of this
decision appealed fro, bein! contrary to la(, is set aside. +o ordered.
3