277. Manila Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Employees Assn. (1947)

Republic of the Philippines Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-1206

October 30, 1947

THE MN!L ELECTR!C COMPN",  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  under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court interposed by the petitioner Manila Electric Copany a!ainst a!ainst the decision of "uly #$, #%4& of the Court of 'ndustrial Relations, (hich reads as follo(s)  Althou!h the practice practice of the copany, copany, accordin! to the anifestations anifestations of counsel for said copany, has been to !rant one day vacation(ith pay to every (or*in!an (ho had (or*ed for seven consecutivedays consecutivedays includin! +undays, the Court considers ustified the oppositionpresented 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 copany to pay $per cent increasefor overtie (or* done on ordinary days and $- per cent increase for (or* done durin! +undays and le!al holidays irrespective of the nuberof days they (or* durin! the (ee*. The appellant contends that the said decision of the Court of 'ndustrialRelations 'ndustrialRelations is a!ainst the provision of section 4, Coon(ealth Act No. 444, (hich reads as follo(s) No person, fir, or corporation, business establishent or place or center of labor shall copel an eployee 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 reuneration) Provided, however, Thast however, Thast this prohibition shall not

apply to publicutilities perforin! soe public service such as supplyin! !as,electricity, !as,electricity, po(er, (ater, or providin! eans of transportationor counication.  After a careful consideration consideration of the issue involved involved in this appeal, appeal, (e are of the opinion 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 eployees or laborers, !ranted by the !eneral provisions of section # of Coon(ealth Act No. #-1, has beenrestricted by the above 0uoted special provisions of Coon(ealth ActNo. ActNo. 444, in the sense that public utilities supplyin! electricity,!as, electricity,!as, po(er, (ater, or providin! eans of transportation or counication ay copel their eployees or laborers to (or* durin!+undays and le!al holidays (ithout payin! the an additional copensation copensation of not less than 2$ per cent of their re!ular reuneration on said days. +ince the provisions of the above 0uoted section 4, are plain and unabi!uous and convey a clear and definite eanin!, there is no need of resortin! to the rules of statutory interpretation orconstruction in order to deterine the intention of the 3e!islature.+aid 3e!islature.+aid section # consists of t(o parts) the first, (hich is the enactentclause, prohibits a person, fir or corporation, business establishent,or place or center of labor fro copellin! an eployee or laborer to(or* durin! +undays and le!al holidays, unless the forer pays thelatter an additional su of at least t(enty five per centu of his re!ular reuneration and the second part, (hich is an e/ception,e/epts e/ception,e/epts public utilities perforin! soe public service, such assupplyin! !as, electricity, po(er, (ater or providin! eans oftransportation or counication, fro the prohibition establishedin the enactent 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/ept fro the 0ualifiedprohibition 0ualifiedprohibition established in the enactent clause, and ay copel its eployees or laborers to (or* durin! +undays and le!al holidays (ithout payin! the said e/tra copensation. To hold hold that the e/ception or second part of section 4, Coon(ealthAct Coon(ealthAct No. 444, only e/epts public utilities entioned therein fro the prohibition to copel eployees or laborers to (or* durin! +undaysand le!al holidays, holidays, but not fro the obli!ation to pay the an e/traor additional copensation copensation for copellin! 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 enactent clause is not an absolute prohibitionto copel a laborer or eployee to (or* durin! +undays and le!al holidays. The prohibition to copel a laborer or eployee 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 reuneration,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  provisoalthou!h it is introduced by the (ord 1

5provided5 and it is eleentalthat an e/ception ta*es out of an enactent soethin! (hich (ouldother(ise (ouldother(ise be part of the subect atter of it. To construe section 4, Coon(ealth Act No. 444, as e/eptin! public utilities, li*e the appellant, fro the obli!ation to pay the additional reuneration re0uired by said section 4 should they copel their eployees or laborers to (or* on +undays and le!alholidays, 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 sae 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 differences(hich are apparent and reasonable. 6Ma!onn vs. 'llinois vs. 'llinois Trust +avin!s Ban*, #;- N. +., 2