Scotys Department Store, et al. v. Micaller (1956)
Micaller filed charges of unfair labor practice
Bautista Angelo, J.
Plaintiff: Scotys Department Store et al.
Respondent: Nena Micaller
Concept: Imposition of Fines and Penalties
Brief facts: Micaller was dismissed from employment
by the owners of Scotys Department Store for her
membership in the National Labor Union. Micaller filed
a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice against the
owners in the CIR. CIR found them guilty and imposed
a penalty of P100. Petitioners question the propriety of
judgment and the jurisdiction of the CIR to impose the
penalty.
Doctrine: The power to impose penalties provided in
Sec 25 of RA 875 is lodged in the ordinary courts and
not in the CIR, notwithstanding of the definition of the
word court contained in Section 2(a).
Administrative Body: Court of Industrial Relations
Law Involved: Section 25 of RA 875 (An Act to
Promote Industrial Peace and For Other Purposes)
FACTS:
1. Nena Micaller was employed as a salesgirl in the
Scotys Department Store which was owned and
operated by Yu Ki Lam, Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao,
and Helen Yang.
2. A week before October 12, 1953, Micaller
organized a union among the employees of the
store which was later affiliated with the National
Labor Union.
3. Later, the National Labor Union sent a petition to
the store containing 10 demands, so Micaller was
called by the management for questioning. Owners
of the store asked her who the members of the
union were, but she pretended not to know them.
4. Richard Yang and Yu Si Kiao together with a
brother-in-law, went to her house to question her
regarding the union membership. A day later,
Micaller was brought by her employers to the
house of their counsel and was again questioned.
She was even made to sign a paper of withdrawal
from the union.
5. On October 19, 1953, Yu Ki Lam (manager), asked
each and every employee whether they were
members of the union, threatening to close the
store if they wouldnt dissolve the union.
6. On October 31, the union gave a notice to strike.
Upon receipt of such notice, management hired
temporary employees equal in number to the old.
The new employees were affiliated with another
labor union.
7. The following were filed against Micaller by the
management:
a. Information for threatsdismissed
b. Information for slandersentenced to pay
a fine of P50appealed
c. Another information for slaner
8. On November 30, she was dismissed for insulting
the owner of the store and for talking to the girls
inside the store during business hours.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
9.
against her employers alleging that she was
dismissed because of her membership in the
National Labor Union and that prior to her
dismissal, they had been questioning their
employees regarding their membership in the
union which amounts to an interference in their
right to organize.
10. The Court of Industrial Relations found them guilty
of unfair labor practice and ordered them to pay a
fine of P100.
11. Petitioners raise the following errors:
a. CIR erred in finding that Micaller was
dismissed because of her membership in
the National Labor Union
b. CIR erred in finding that they have
committed unfair labor practice
c. CIR erred in finding that they can be legally
punished for a fine of P100
SC: Issues a and b cannot be resolved by the court
because they involve questions of fact. CIR has made a
careful analysis of the evidence and has found
petitioners guilty. Such finding is binding upon the
court. Only resolution of error c is in order.
ISSUE:
WON the CIR has jurisdiction to impose the penalties
prescribed in Section 25 of RA 875. (NO)
RATIO:
Petitioners: Section 25 of RA 875 (An Act to Promote
Industrial Peace and For Other Purposes) being penal in
character should be strictly construed in favor of the
accused and in that sense, their guilt can only be
established by clear and positive evidence and not
merely presumptions or inferences as was done by the
CIR.
Section 25. Penalties. Any person who violates the
provisions of section 3 of this Act shall be punished
by a fine of not less than P100 not more than
P1000, or by imprisonment of not less than 1
month nor more than 1 year, or by both such fine
and imprisonment, in the discretion of the
Court.
SC: The above provision is general in nature for it
doesnt specify which court that may act when the
violation charged calls for the imposition of the
penalties.
-said provision notwithstanding, the Court referred
to in Sec 25 cannot be the CIR for to give that
meaning would be violative of the safeguards
guaranteed to every accused by our Constitution.
o No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of
law
-the procedure laid down by law to be observed by
the CIR in dealing with unfair labor practice cases
negates the constitutional guarantees to the
accused (the right to be hear by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation, to have a speedy and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
 compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses on his behalf), because the law provides
that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of
law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the
intention of this act to ascertain facts in each
case speedily and objectively and without regard
to technicalities of law and procedure
-this means that the accused may be tried without
the right to confront witnesses face to face and
may be convicted merely on preponderance of
evidence and not beyond reasonable doubt
-it may be argued that this gap may be subserved
by requiring the CIR to observe strictly the rules
applicable to criminal cases to meet the
requirements of the Constitution, but this would be
tantamount to amending the law which isnt within
the province of the judiciary
-RA 875 may be compared with RA 1267 (affect the
Court of Agrarian Relations) which provides that
criminal proceedings should be prosecuted as in
ordinary cases
o Clear indication that when Congress
intends to confer criminal jurisdiction upon
an administrative court, it expressly says
so in an unmistakable language
o Congress made its intention clear when it
amended the law by eliminating entirely
this criminal jurisdiction originally
conferred upon the Court of Agrarian
Relations
-court looked at the deliberations made on the bill
which eliminated that criminal jurisdiction, showing
that the intent of Congress was to place the Court
of Agrarian Relations on equal footing as the Public
Service Commission and CIR
-the power to impose penalties provided in Sec 25
of RA 875 is lodged in the ordinary courts and not
in the CIR, notwithstanding of the definition of the
word court contained in Section 2(a). Hence, the
decision of the CIR insofar as it imposes a fine of
P100 is illegal and should be nullified.
DISPOSITIVE: Decision appealed from is modified by
eliminating the fine of P100 imposed upon petitioners.
In all other respects, the same is affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
United States v. Aniceto Barrias (1908) Tracey, J.
Plaintiff: The United States
Respondent: Aniceto Barrias
Concept: Imposition of Fines and Penalties
Brief Facts: Aniceto Barrias was charged with a
violation of paragraphs 70 and 83 of Circular No. 397
promulgated by the Insular Collector of Customs. The
complaint was framed with reference, as its authority,
to Sections 311 and 319 of Act No. 355 of the
Philippine Customs Administrative Act, as amended by
Acts No. 1235 and 1480. Under Act No. 1235, the
Collector is not only empowered to make suitable
regulations, but also to fix penalties in violation
thereof, not exceeding a fine of P500. He questions the
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2
power of the Collector of Customs to fix the penalty as
an undue delegation of legislative power.
Doctrine: Where the sovereign power of the State has
located the authority, there it must remain; and by the
constitutional agency alone the laws must be made
until the constitution itself is changed. The power to
whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high
prerogative has been entrusted cannot relieve itself of
the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon
which the power shall be developed, nor can it
substitute the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism of any
other body for those to which alone the people have
seen it fit to confide this sovereign trust.
Administrative Body: Collector of Customs
Law Involved: Paragraphs 70 and 83 of Circular No.
397; Act No. 355 as amended by Act. 1235 which
grants the power to the Collector to make suitable
regulations, but also to fix penalties in violation
thereof, not exceeding a fine of P500.
FACTS:
1. Aniceto Barrias was charged with a violation of
paragraphs 70 and 83 of Circular No. 397
promulgated by the Insular Collector of Customs.
He was caught, as captain of the lighter (small
ship/boat) Maude, moving the vessel which was
heavily laden by bamboo poles without steam,
sail, or any other external power in the Pasig River.
o Paragraph 70: No heavily loaded casco,
lighter, or other similar craft shall be
permitted to move in the Pasig River
without being towed by steam or moves by
other adequate power.
o Paragraph 83: For the violation of any of
the foregoing regulations, the person
offending shall be liable to a fine of not less
than P5 and not more than P500, in the
discretion of the court.
2. Barrias attacks the validity of paragraphs 70 on 2
grounds:
a. It is unauthorized by Section 19 of Act No.
355
b. That if the Acts of the Philippine
Commission bear the interpretation of
authorizing the Collector to promulgate
such a law, they are void, as constituting
an illegal delegation of legislative power
3. The complaint was framed with reference, as its
authority, to Sections 311 and 319 of Act No. 355
of the Philippine Customs Administrative Act, as
amended by Acts No. 1235 and 1480.
o Under Act No. 1235, the Collector is not
only empowered to make suitable
regulations, but also to fix penalties in
violation thereof, not exceeding a fine of
P500.
ISSUE: WON the Insular Collector of Customs can fix
the penalty of the law. (NO)
RATIO:
Although the Collector of Customs can make and
publish rules and regulations, it cannot exercise
the duty of the legislature to fix the penalty of a
certain law.
-One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is
that the power conferred upon the legislature to
make laws cannot be delegated by that
department to any other body or authority. Where
the sovereign power of the State has located the
authority, there it must remain; and by the
constitutional agency alone the laws must be made
until the constitution itself is changed. The power
to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this
high prerogative has been entrusted cannot relieve
itself of the responsibility by choosing other
agencies upon which the power shall be developed,
nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom, and
patriotism of any other body for those to which
alone the people have seen it fit to confide this
sovereign trust.
-This doctrine is based on the ethical principle
that such a delegated power constitutes not only
a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate
by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting
immediately upon the matter of legislation and not
through the intervening mind of another.
-Board of harbor Commissioners of the port of
Eureka v. Excelsior Redwood Company: Conceding
that the legislature could delegate to the plaintiff
the authority to make rules and regulations with
reference to the navigation of Humboldt Bay, the
penalty for the violation of such rules and
regulations is a matter purely in the hands of the
legislature.
-Under Act. 1136 (which was not referred to on
the argument or in the original briefs), the Collector
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3
of Customs is authorized to license craft engaged
in the lighterage or other exclusively harbor
business of ports.
o Section 5: The Collector of Customs of the
Philippine Islands is hereby authorized,
empowered, and directed to promptly
make and publish suitable rules and
regulations to carry this law into effect and
to regulate the business herein licensed
o Section 8: Any person who shall violate the
provisions of this Act, or of any rule or
regulation made and issued by the
Collector of Customs for the Philippine
Islands, under and by authority of this Act,
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and upon conviction shall be punished by
imprisonment for not more than 6 months,
or by a fine of not more than $100
-Having sustained that Act No. 1136 is valid, so far
as Sections 5 and 8 are concerned, and is sufficient
to sustain this prosecution, it is unnecessary for
this court to pass on the questions discussed in the
briefs as to the extent of the validity of other acts.
- Since the grant of authority to fix the penalties is
invalid, the conviction under Act 1235 is revoked.
However, he is guilty of misdemeanor under Act
1136 is punished by a fine of $25.
DISPOSITIVE: So much of the judgment of the CFI as
convicts the defendant of violation of Act Nos. 355 and
1235 is hereby revoked, and he is hereby convicted of
a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of $25, with
costs of both instances.