Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1309 July 26, 1948

THE SHELL COMPANY OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LIMITED, recurrente,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, recurrida.

Sres. Ross, Selph, Carrascoso y Janda en representacion de la recurrente.

Sres. Paguia y Villanueva en representacion de la recurrida.

BRIONES, J.:

Acting on a petition from the labor body called the "National Labor Union,"
the Industrial Relations Court has issued a ruling in which, among other
things, the oil firm "The Shell Company of Philippine Islands, to their workers
who work at night (from sunset until they get up the next day) an additional
compensation of 50% on their regular wages if they worked during the day.
It seems that the comany needs the night service of a certain number of
workers, since the airplanes coming from abroad usually land and take off at
night, which is why it is necessary to do night work for the supply of gasoline
and lubricants, and for other things. The oil company has been excepted
against that decision of there the present resource of certiorari so that we
revoquemos it.

The appellant argues and argues that not only is there no legal provision that
empowers the Industrial Relations Court to order the payment of additional
compensation to workers who work at night but, on the contrary,
Commonwealth Law No. 444 exempts the employer from such an obligation
since in that law cases are provided in which the payment of overtime is
compulsory, and such cases do not include night work.

The Workers' Union, for its part, contends that the power at issue forms part
of the broad and effective powers conferred on the said tribunal by
Commonwealth Law No. 103 - the Organic Charter of the Industrial Relations
Tribunal - and that Commonwealth Law No. 444 invoked has no application
to the present case, since it is necessarily limited in scope, referring
specifically and exclusively to the maximum daily working time allowed in
industrial establishments - the day of 8 hours.

Our conclusion is that the workers' union appealed has the reason on its part.
For a clear and thorough elucidation of the points discussed, it is convenient,
even at the risk of lengthening this paper, to transcribe the relevant legal
provisions that are articles 1, 4 and 13 of Commonwealth Law No. 103. Helas
here:
SECTION 1. The Judge: his appointment, qualifications, compensation,
tenure. There is hereby created a Court of Industrial Relations, which shall
have jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide,
and settle any question, matter, controversy or dispute arising between,
and/or affecting, employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and
tenants or farm-laborers, and regulate the relation between them, subject to,
and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act. The Court shall keep a
record of all its proceedings and shall be presided over by a Judge to be
appointed by the President of the Philippines with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly. The Judge of the
Court shall hold office during good behavior until he reaches the age of
seventy years, or becomes incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office.
His qualifications shall be the same as those provided in the Constitution for
members of the Supreme Court and he shall receive an annual compensation
of ten thousand pesos and shall be entitled to traveling expenses and per
diems when performing official duties outside of the City of Manila. The
Department of Justice shall have executive supervision over the Court.

SEC. 4. Strikes and lockouts. The Court shall take cognizance for purpose
of prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or
agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising form
differences as regards wages, shares or compensation, hours of labor or
conditions of tenancy or employment, between employers and employees or
laborers and between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, provided that
the number of employees, laborers or tenants or farm-laborers involved
exceeds thirty, and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the
Court by the Secretary of Labor, or by any or both of the parties to the
controversy and certified by the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to
be dealt with by the Court for the sake of public interest. In all such cases,
the Secretary of Labor or the party or parties submitting the disputes, shall
clearly and specifically state in writing the questions to be decided. Upon the
submission of such a controversy or question by the Secretary of Labor, his
intervention therein as authorized by law, shall cease.

The Court shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing,
endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the dispute by
amicable agreement. If any agreement as to the whole or any part of the
dispute is arrived at by the parties, a memorandum of its terms shall be
made in writing, signed and acknowledged by the parties thereto before the
Judge of the Court or any official acting in his behalf and authorized to
administer oaths or acknowledgments, or, before a notary public. The
memorandum shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court, and, unless
otherwise ordered by the Court, shall, as between the parties to the
agreement, have the same effect as, and be deemed to be, a decision or
award.

SEC. 13. Character of the award. In making an award, order or decision,

under the provisions of section four of this Act, the Court shall not be
restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to
the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order or
decision any matter or determination which my be deemed necessary or
expedient for the purpose of setting the dispute or of preventing further
industrial or agricultural disputes.
It is evident from the provisions transcribed as follows: (a) that when a
dispute arises between the principal and the employee or worker, on matters
of wages, the Industrial Relations Court has jurisdiction throughout the
territory of the Philippines to consider, investigate and resolve said dispute,
setting such wages as it deems fair and reasonable; (b) that for the purposes
of prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, the Industrial Relations
Tribunal also has jurisdiction to hear any disputes - industrial or agricultural -
resulting from any differences with respect to wages, shares or
compensation, hours of work, conditions of employment or of the partnership
between employers and employees or workers and between owners and
landowners or agricultural workers, prior to the fulfillment of certain
requirements and conditions, when it is seen that said dispute causes or can
cause a strike; (c) In the exercise of its powers specified above, the
Industrial Relations Court is not limited, in deciding the dispute, to grant the
remedy or remedies requested by the parties to the dispute, but may include
in the order or decision any matter or determination for the purpose of
settling the dispute or to prevent further industrial or agricultural disputes.

In the case in question, there is undoubtedly an industrial dispute. While the

company, the Shell company, is not willing to pay its workers at night higher
salaries than the blue-collar workers, the NationalLabor Union, to which
Shell's workers are affiliated, demands another type of salary for the service
night - 50% more. This is the dispute, industrial litigation. Now, what has the
Court of Industrial Relations done after the conflict has been submitted to its
jurisdiction? For it is precisely what is said in the Commonwealth Law No.
103, an organic charter of its creation and operation, namely: to consider,
investigate and prosecute the dispute, then resolve it in the sense in which it
has been resolved, that is, by remunerating work at night with 50% more of
the day salaries. And this is perfectly legal both within the scope of Article 1
of said Law No. 103 which empowers the Industrial Relations Court to decide
any dispute over wages and compensation in the manner it deems
reasonable and convenient, as within the framework of Article 4 of the same
law that authorizes said court to prosecute and decide any industrial or
agricultural lawsuit or controversy determines the outbreak of a strike or
shop to cause it. However, the Trbunal of Industrial Relations in this case is
also legal within the framework of article 13 of the same law No. 103, article
which, as seen, not only empowers said court to grant the remedy but also to
go beyond, that is, to grant remedies not expressly requested, provided that
they are directed to resolve the dispute at once or to prevent the outbreak of
further disputes or strikes.

It is evident that with these broad powers the State has proposed to equip
the Industrial Relations Tribunal to the maximum extent of its usefulness and
effectiveness, making it not a mere academic agency, but truly active,
dynamic and efficient - in a word, the official machinery par excellence in the
formidable and thorny task of resolving industrial and agrarian conflicts of a
certain kind, thus preventing and avoiding those strikes and strikes that so
much afflict and harm not only the enterprises and the workers, but in
general, the whole community. In his concurrent opinion delivered in the
authoritative case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations1 (R.G. No.
46496), Magistrate Laurel has very rightly expressed the fundamental idea
that underlies the creation of said court, with the following pronouncement:

In Commonwealth Act No. 103, and by it, our government no longer

performs the role of mere mediator or intervenor but that of supreme arbiter.
(Las cursivas son nuestras.).

The appellant argues, however, that although it is true that in case of dispute
the Industrial Relations Tribunal has, under its organic law, the power to fix
wages, such power is not absolute, but is subject to certain restrictions, and
cut-offs, provided by the law commonly known as the eight-hour law,
Commonwealth Law No. 444, the pertinent articles of which are dealt with in
full below:

SECTION 1. The legal working day for any person employed by another shall
be of not more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the
time during which the laborer is not working and can leave his working place
and can rest completely shall not be counted.

SEC. 3. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual
or impending emergencies caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon,
earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or calamity in order to prevent loss
to life and property or imminent danger to public safety; or in case urgent
work to be performed on the machines, equipment, or installations in order
to avoid a serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer, or some
other just cause of a similar nature; but in all such cases the laborers and
employees shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work
performed at the same rate as their regular wages or salary, plus at least
twenty-five per centum additional.

In case of national emergency the government is empowered to establish

rules and regulations for the operation of the plants and factories and to
determine the wages to be paid the laborers.

SEC. 4. No person, firm, or corporation, business establishment or place or

center of labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays
and legal holidays, unless he is paid an additional sum of at least twenty-
five per centum of his regular remuneration: Provided however, That this
prohibition shall not apply to public utilities performing some public service
such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of
transportation or communication.

However, the lawyers of the appellant argue - these articles specify the cases
in which the payment of extra or additional compensation is authorized and
are only, namely: (a) in case of overtime or work in excess of the regular
hours for imperative reasons of urgency in the event of a disaster or
accident, or to prevent loss or repair; (b) in case of work on Sundays and
holidays; (c) in case of emergency, and there is nothing to do with night
work; then the order in question is illegal, as it is not authorized by law. "In
the absence," recalls the lawyers of the appellant - legislation authorizing the
payment of extra compensation for work done at night, the Court of
Industrial Relations has no power or authority to order the petitioner
company to pay extra compensation for work done by its laborers At night,
at night, at night, at night, at night, at night, at night, at night, at night, at
night, at night. Commonwealth Act No. 444 can not be enlarged by
implication or otherwise. Expression facit cessare tacitum.

The argument is wrong. Law No. 444 is not applicable to the present case, it
being obvious that it has a specific purpose, namely: (a) fixing the maximum
working day in 8 hours; (b) to indicate certain exceptional cases in which the
work can be authorized outside that day; (c) provide a bonus, which must
not be less than 25% of the regular salary, for overtime or work in excess of
8 hours.

In the case of Manila Electric, petitioner-appellant, against The Public Utities

Employees' Association, 2 appeal, L-1206 (45 Off. Gaz., 1760), this Court
has stated that the power conferred by Article 1 of the Act of Commonwealth
No. 103 to the Industrial Relations Tribunal to try and decide industrial
disputes and disputes between capital and labor, including that of fixing
wages and compensation of employees and workers, has been restricted by
Article 4 of Commonwealth Law No Which, at the same time as limiting to
25% of the worker's regular salary or compensation the minimum of the
additional compensation that the court may grant for work on Sundays and
official holidays, exempts from the payment of such additional compensation
to the entities of public utility that provide some public service, such as those
that supply gas, electricity, life force, water, or provide means of transport or
communication. Such restriction is an exception to the general power of the
court to set, in cases of dispute, the wages and compensation to be paid by
employers to employees and workers; and since Article 4 refers only to
salary or compensation for work during the days of Sundays and official
holidays, it is obvious that it can not refer to salary or additional
compensation for work outside the eight-hour period generally carried out
from the first hours of the morning to late hours of the afternoon, because
one thing is to work on Sundays and official holidays, and quite another thing
is to work at night outside the eight-hour day on weekdays. Applying the
legal maximum "express unius est exclusio alterius," it can be argued,
without fear of error, that a law providing a specific exception to its general
provisions, such as additional compensation for work on Sunday days and
official holidays, another, such as the additional compensation for night work
on weekdays. "Here wemay safely assumes that all other exceptions were
intended to be excluded. " (Wabash R. Co., United States, 178 Fed., 5, 101
CCA 133; Cella Commision Co. v. Bohlinger, 147 Fed., 419; 78 CCA 467;
Kunkalman vs. Gibson, 171 Ind., 503; 84 NE 985, Hering vs. Clement, 133
App. Div., 293; 117 NY, supp. 747.).
The work that Shell demands from its workers is not really an "overtime", in
the sense in which this word is used in Law No. 444, but is a full working
day, also of 8 hours: alone which, instead of being performed by day, is done
at night. In other words, the night work here is not only an extension, an
overtime of regular day work, but another type of work, quite independent of
the day's work. That is why there are two shifts: the shift of workers who
work during the day; and the shift of those who work at night. So it is not
strange that the legislator has not included this type of work among the
cases of "overtime" indicated in the mentioned law No. 444. The question
that, in our opinion, must be determined is whether among the general
faculties of the Court of Industrial Relations that are admitted without
dipusta, is to consider the day at night as a full day of work; to estimate it as
more burdensome than the day's journey; and consequently, that of
providing and ordering to be paid 50% more of the regular daily wages. Our
answer is affirmative: all this is included among the general powers of the
Court of Industrial Relations. If this court has, in cases of dispute, the power
to fix the wages it deems fair and reasonable for day labor, there is no
reason why it should not have the same power with respect to night wages;
it is as much work as one. And with respect to the appreciation that night
work is heavier and burdensome than day work and therefore deserves
higher remuneration, there are no grounds for revoking or altering it. There
is no possible argument against the universal fact that regular, normal and
ordinary labor is day labor, and that labor at night is very exceptional and
justified only by certain imperatively unavoidable reasons. For something
mankind has always worked during the day.

Reasons for hygiene, medicine, morality, culture, sociology, establish that

the work of nocho has many disadvantages, and when there is no choice but
to do so, it is only fair that you pay better than usual to compensate for a
certain point to the worker of such inconveniences. Undoubtedly, night work
not only affects the worker's health in the long run, but also deprives the
worker of certain things that make life relatively pleasant, such as a
complete and uninterrupted rest and certain moments of solace , leisure or
spiritual and cultural expansion that you could have at the end of work in the
evening and during the early hours of the night. It is said that the worker can
rest during the day after having worked all night; but can the rest of the day
give the body that tonic and that complete restorative effect which can only
provide the natural rest at night? It is also said that some prefer to work at
night under our scorching weather, thus avoiding the heat of the day. We
fear, however, that this is better spoken than practiced. We believe that from
time immemorial the universal rule is that man works at night more by
irremediable necessity than by pleasant convenience. To vulgar, universal
opinion, we must add the former, the expert opinion. The opinion of the
writers and experts militates decisively in favor of the thesis that night work
is harder and more costly than day labor, considering for this with marked
repugnance and consequently compelling capitalist management to establish
a higher scale of wages as an incentive to the workers to accept it. We could
cite several authorities, but not to extend this paper too much we chose to
transcribe just a few, namely:

. . . Then, it must be remembered that it is distinctly unphysiological to turn

the night into day and deprive the body of the beneficial effects of sunshine.
The human organism revolts against this procedure. Added to artificial
lighting are reversed and unnatural times of eating, resting, and sleeping.
Much of the inferiority of nightwork can doubtless be traced to the failure of
the workers to secure proper rest and sleep, by day. Because of inability or
the lack of opportunity to sleep, nightworkers often spend their days in
performing domestic duties, joining the family in the midday meal, 'tinkering
about the place', watching the baseball game, attending the theater or taking
a ride in the car. It is not strange that nightworkers tend to be less efficient
than dayworkers and lose more time. . . (The Management of Labor
Relations, by Watkins & Dodd, page 524.).

Nightwork. Nightwork has gained a measure of prominence in the modern

industrial system in connection with continuous industries, that is, industries
in which the nature of the processes makes it necessary to keep machinery
and equipment in constant operation. Even in continuous industries the
tendency is definitely in the direction of FOUR shifts of 6 hours each, with
provision for an automatic change of shift for all workers at stated intervals.
Some discussion has taken place with regard to the lengths of the period any
workers should be allowed to remain on the night shift. A weekly change of
shifts is common, specially where three or four shifts are in operation; in
other cases the change is made fortnightly or monthly; in still other
instances, no alternation is provided for, the workers remaining on day or
nightwork permanently, except where temporary changes are made for
individual convenience.

There is sharp difference of opinion concerning the relative merits of these

systems. Advocates of the weekly change of shifts contend that the strain of
nightwork and the difficulty of getting adequate sleep during the day make it
unwise for workers to remain on the"graveyard" shift for more than a week
at a time. Opponents urge that repeated changes make it more difficult to
settle down to either kind of shift and that after the first week nightwork
becomes less trying while the ability to sleep by day increases. Workers
themselves react in various ways to the different systems. This much,
however, is certain: Few persons react favorably to nightwork, whether the
shift be continuous or alternating. Outside of continuous industries,
nightwork can scarcely be justified, and, even in these, it presents serious
disadvantages which must be recognized in planing for industrial efficiency,
stabilization of the working force, the promotion of industrial good-will, and
the conservation of the health and vitality of the workers.

Nightwork cannot be regarded as desirable, either from the point of view of

the employer or of the wage earner. It is uneconomical unless overhead
costs are unusually heavy. Frequently the scale of wages is higher as an
inducement to employees to accept employment on the night shift, and the
rate of production is generally lower. (Management of Labor Relations, by
Watkins & Dodd, pp. 522-524; emphasis ours.)

. . . The lack of sunlight tends to produce anemia and tuberculosis and to

predispose to other ills. Nightwork brings increased liability to eyestrain and
accident. Serious moral dangers also are likely to result from the necessity of
traveling the streets alone at night, and from the interference with normal
home life. From an economic point of view, moreover, the investigations
showed that nightwork was unprofitable, being inferior to day work both in
quality and in quantity. Wherever it had been abolished, in the long run the
efficiency both of the management and of the workers was raised.
Furthermore, it was found that nightwork laws are a valuable aid in enforcing
acts fixing the maximum period of employment. (Principles of Labor
Legislation, by Commons and Andrews, 4th Revised Edition, p. 142.)

Special regulation of nightwork for adult men is a comparatively recent

development. Some European countries have adopted laws placing special
limitations on hours of nightwork for men, and others prohibit such work
except in continuous processes. (Principles of Labor legislation, 4th Revised
Edition by Common & Andrews, p. 147.)

Nightwork has almost invariably been looked upon with disfavor by students
of the problem because of the excessive strain involved, especially for
women and young persons, the large amount of lost time consequent upon
exhaustion of the workers, the additional strain and responsibility upon the
executive staff, the tendency of excessively fatigued workers to "keep going"
on artificial stimulants, the general curtailment of time for rest, leisure, and
cultural improvement, and the fact that night workers, although precluded to
an extent from the activities of day life, do attempt to enter into these
activities, with resultant impairment of physical well-being. It is not
contended, of course, that nightwork could be abolished in the continuous-
process industries, but it is possible to put such industries upon a three- or
four-shifts basis, and to prohibit nightwork for women and children. (Labor's
Progress and Problems, Vol. I, p. 464, by Professors Millis and Montgomery.)

Nightwork. Civilized peoples are beginning to recognize the fact that

except in cases of necessity or in periods of great emergency, nightwork is
socially undesirable. Under our modern industrial system, however,
nightwork has greatly aided the production of commodities, and has offered a
significant method of cutting down the ever-increasing overhead costs of
industry. This result has led employers to believe that such work is necessary
and profitable. Here again one meets a conflict of economic and social
interests. Under these circumstances it is necessary to discover whether
nightwork has deleterious effects upon the health of laborers and tends to
reduce the ultimate supply of efficient labor. If it can proved that nightwork
affects adversely both the quality and quantity of productive labor, its
discontinuance will undoubtedly be sanctioned by employers. From a social
point of view, even a relatively high degree of efficiency in night operations
must be forfeited if it is purchased with rapid exhaustion of the health and
energy of the workers. From an economic point of view, nightwork may be
necessary if the employer is to meet the demand for his product, or if he is
to maintain his market in the face of increasing competition or mounting
variable production costs.

Industrial experience has shown that the possession of extra-ordinary

physical strength and self-control facilitates the reversal of the ordinary
routine of day work and night rest, with the little or no unfavorable effect on
health and efficiency. Unusual vitality and self-control, however, are not
common possessions. It has been found that the most serious obstacle to a
reversal of the routine is the lack of self-discipline. Many night workers enter
into the numerous activities of day life that preclude sleep, and continue to
attempt to do their work at night. Evidence gathered by the British Health of
Munition Workers' Committee places permanent night workers, whether
judged on the basis of output or loss of time, in a very unfavorable positions
as compared with day workers.

Systems of nightwork differ. There is the continuous system, in which

employees labor by night and do not attend the establishment at all by day,
and the discontinuous system, in which the workers change to the day turn
at regular intervals, usually every other week. There are, of course, minor
variations in these systems, depending upon the nature of the industry and
the wishes of management. Such bodies as the British Health Munition
Workers' Committee have given us valuable conclusions concerning the effect
of nightwork. Continuous nightwork is definitely less productive than the
discontinuous system. The output of the continuous day shift does not make
up for this loss in production.

There is, moreover, a marked difference between the rates of output of night
and day shifts on the discontinuous plan. In each case investigated the
inferiority of night labor was definitely established. This inferiority is evidently
the result of the night worker's failure to secure proper amounts of sleep and
rest during the day. The system of continuous shifts, especially for women, is
regarded by all investigators as undesirable. Women on continuous
nightwork are likely to perform domestic duties, and this added strain
undoubtedly accounts for the poorer results of their industrial activities. The
tendency to devote to amusement and other things the time that should be
spent in rest and sleep is certainly as common among men as among women
workers and accounts largely for the loss of efficiency and time on the part of
both sexes in nightwork.

The case against nightwork, then, may be said to rest upon several grounds.
In the first place, there are the remotely injurious effects of permanent
nightwork manifested in the later years of the worker's life. Of more
immediate importance to the average worker is the disarrangement of his
social life, including the recreational activities of his leisure hours and the
ordinary associations of normal family relations. From an economic point of
view, nightwork is to be discouraged because of its adverse effect upon
efficiency and output. A moral argument against nightwork in the case of
women is that the night shift forces the workers to go to and from the factory
in darkness. Recent experiences of industrial nations have added much to the
evidence against the continuation of nightwork, except in extraordinary
circumstances and unavoidable emergencies. The immediate prohibition of
nightwork for all laborers is hardly practicable; its discontinuance in the case
of women employees is unquestionably desirable. 'The night was made for
rest and sleep and not for work' is a common saying among wage-earning
people, and many of them dream of an industrial order in which there will be
no night shift. (Labor Problems, 3rd Edition, pp. 325-328, by Watkins &
Dodd.).

In the merits of the above, the writ of certiorari interposed is denied and the
judgment of the Industrial Reconstruction Court, with costs in charge of the
appellant, is confirmed. That is how it is commanded.

Paras, Interim Pres., Fair, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla and Tuason, MM.,
Are satisfied.