G.R. No.
L-1309 July 26, 1948 referring only to the particular and maximum hours of work
THE SHELL COMPANY OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LIMITED,
recurrente,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, recurrida.
Mr. Ross, Selph, Carrasco and Janda in the representation of
appellant.
Mr. Paguia and Villanueva in representation of the appeal.
BRIONES, J.:
Acting on a request for the entity worker named "National Labor
Union," the Industrial Relations Court has rendered a decision in
which, among other things, obliges signing oil "The Shell Company of
Philippine Islands, Limited to pay their workers who work at night
(after the sun sets until he gets up the following day) additional
compensation of 50% over their regular wages if they work day. It
seems that the company needs the night service of a certain number
of workers, because the planes from abroad often landing and taking
off at night, why is it necessary to become chores at night for the
supply of gasoline and lubricants, and other duties. The oil company
has exceptions against the decision of ahi this action for certiorari to
rescind it.
The company appellant claims and argues that not only there is no
legal provision to empower the Industrial Relations Court to order the
payment of additional compensation to workers who work at night,
but on the contrary, the Commonwealth Act. 444 absolve the
employer of such is any time in this law are provided where it is
compulsory to pay "overtime" (additional compensation), and among
such cases not included work at night.
For its part, the union workers' appeal argues that the option under
discussion is part of the broad powers and effective than the
Commonwealth Act. 103 letter Organic Industrial Relations Court
gives the court and the law. 444 Commonwealth which is invoked has
no application to this case because it is necessarily limited in scope,
contidiano permitted in industrial establishments day of 8 hours.
Our conclusion is that the workers' union has appealed the reason for
his party. For a clear and comprehensive ELUCIDACION of the points
discussed, estmamos desirable, even at the risk of extending this
paper, transcribing lasdisposiciones that are relevant legal articles 1,
4 and 13 of Commonwealth Act 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.
Clearly the provisions transcribed as follows: (a) that when a dispute
arises between the principal and the employee or worker, Vgr. on
issues of wages, the Industrial Relations Court has jurisdiction
throughout the Philippines to consider, investigate and resolve this
dispute, setting the salaries it deems fair and reasonable, (b) that for
the purposes of prevention, arbitration decision and arrangement,
the Industrial Relations Court have equal jurisdiction over any
dispute arising from industrial or agricultural any differences over
wages, shares or compensation, working hours, conditions of
employment or the partnership between employers and employees
or between workers and owners and landowners or farm workers
after fulfilling certain requirements and conditions, when viere
dispute that causes or could cause a strike, (c) that in exercising its
powers specified above, the Industrial Relations Court is not limited
to decide the dispute, to grant the remedy or remedies requested by
the parties to the dispute, but may include in the order or decision or
determination any material for the purpose of settling the dispute or
to prevent further disputes industrial or agricultural use.
For us there is undoubtedly a dispunta industry. While the company,
the company Shell, is not willing to pay their workers higher wages to
night workers round, "NationalLabor Union", which are affiliated to
the trabajadoresde Shell, claiming other wages for service Night 50%
more. This is the dispute, the industrial dispute. However, that has
made the Court of Industrial Relations, submitted after the conflict to
its jurisdiction? It sends precisely what this law. 103 Commonwealth
letter organica its creation and operation, namely to consider,
investigate and prosecute the dispute, after resolviedola in the sense
that it has solved, that is, paid work at night with a 50% over wages
Day. And this is perfectly legal within the scope of article 1 of the Act.
103 which empowers the Industrial Relations Court to decide any
dispute over wages and compensation as it deems reasonable and
appropriate, and within the framework of Article 4 of the same law
that authorizes the court to prosecute and decide any dispute or
controversy industrial or agricultural determined by the outbreak of a
strike or tends to cause it. But still: What made by the Industrial
Relations Trbunal in this case is also legal within the framework of
Article 13 of the same Act. 103, article which, as can be seen, not
only empowers the court to grant the remedy that recabanlas
parties, but even go beyond, namely to grant remedies not expressly
requested, provided that they solve a encamienen After the dispute
or to prevent the outbreak of further disputes or strikes.
Clearly, these broad powers to the states has proposed equipping the
Industrial Relations Court to the maximum possible utility and
efficiency, making it not a simple agency academically, but truly
active, dynamic and efficient in a word, Machinery official par
excellence in the formidable and thorny task of resolving industrial
disputes, yagricolas of some sort, preventing and avoiding in this
way these work stoppages and strikes that afflict and damage not
only to businesses and workers, but in general , The entire
community. In his concurring opinion rendered in the case of Ang
Tibay against authoritative Relations Court Industriales1 (GR no.
46496), Magister Laurel has expressed quite rightly stresses the
fundamental idea that the creation of that court, with the following
statement:
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 while it is true that if the dispute
relaciiones Industrial Court has, under its organic law, the power to
set wages, such power is not absolute, but is subject to certain
cortapizas and restrictions, provided in the law commonly known by
law on the eight-hour day, the Commonwealth Act. 444, whose
articles are relevantly transcribed entirely 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.
Since argumentanlos attorneys that the appellant in these articles
are specified cases in which authorizes the payment of extra
compensation or extra and are only, namely: (a) where "overtime" or
work in excess of regular hours because imperiosasde urgency in
connection with any disaster or accident, or to avoid lost or repair,
(b) if working on Sundays and holidays, (c) in case of emergency, and
there is nothing that relates to work at night, then the order in
question was illegal because not authorized by law. "In the absence
of lawyers emphasize 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. Expressio unius est exclusions alterius. Where, as in the case
at bar, statute expressly specifies the cases where payment of extra
compensation may be demanded, extra compensation may be
allowed in those cases only, and not in others. The provisions of the
Commonwealth Act. 444 can not be enlarged by implication or
otherwise. Expressum facit cessare tacitum.
The argument is misconceived. The Law no. 444 is not applicable to
this case, being clear that it has a specific purpose, namely: (a) set in
the maximum working 8 hours of work, (b) noted that in certain
exceptional cases may be allowed work outside this time, (c) provide
a sobresueldo, which must not be less than 25% of regular salary, for
"overtime" or work in excess of 8 hours.
In the case of Manila Electric, applicant-appellant, against Utities The
Public Employees' Association, appealed 2, L-1206 (45 Off. Gaz.,
1760), this Court has held that the power conferred by Article 1 of
Law Commonwealth. 103 the Industrial Relations Court to decide
enjuciar and industrial disputes and lawsuits between capital and
labour, which includes the setting of wages and compnsaciones
employees and workers, has been restricted by Article 4 of Law No.
Commonwealth. 444, that while only 25% of salary or compensation
regular worker the minimum of additional compensation that the
court may grant for work on Sundays and holidays, exempt from
payment of additional compensation to such entities public utility
providing some public services, such as those providing gas,
electricity, force mortriz, water, or provide means of transportation or
communication. Such a restriction amounts to an exception to the
general power of the court to fix, in cases of dispute, wages and
compensations to be paid by employers to employees and workers,
and as you said Article 4 refers only to wages or compensation for
work during the day Sunday and holidays, it obviously can not cover
salary or additional compensation for work beyond eight hours
lajornada which usually take place from early hours of the morning to
late afternoon, because one thing is to work on days of Sunday and
public holidays, and is otherwise quite different work at night outside
of the eight-hour day on weekdays. Applying the legal maximum
"expressió unius est exclusions alterius," can be sustained without
fear of being wrong, that a law that provides a specific exception to
its general provisions, such as additional compensation for work on
days of Sunday and public holidays, excludes any otherwise, such as
additional compensation for work at night on weekdays. "Another
case in which this maxim may almost invariably followed by statute
is that of which makes certain specific exceptions to its general
provisions. Here wemay safely assume that all other exceptions were
intended to be excluded. " (Wabash R. Co. Vs. United States, 178
Fed., 5, 101 CCA 133; Cella Commission Co. Vs. Bohlinger, 147 Fed.,
419, 78 CCA 467; vs. Kunkalman. Gibson, 171 Ind., 503; 84 NE 985;
vs. Hering. Clement, 133 App. Div., 293, 117 NY, Supp. 747.).
The work denoche Shell that the company requires of its workers is
not talmente an "overtime" in the sense that this word is used in the
Le. 444, but is a full-time work, also from 8 am: only that, instead of
day done, is done at night. In other words, work at night that is here
is not just unexceso, prolongation or "overtime" work regular day,
but that is another kind of work, totally independent of daytime
hours. So there are two shifts: the shift of laborers working day and
the turn of those who work at night. So no wonder that the
legislature did not include this type of work between cases of
"overtime" mentioned in the said law. 444.
The question that we believe, must be determined is whether the
general powers of the Court of Industrial Relations which are allowed
without dipusta, considering this the night the day as a full-time
work; estimation as the most burdensome that day by day, and
consequently, to provide and manage to be remunerated with 50%
more than regular daytime wages. Our answer is yes: all this is
understood among the general powers of the Court of Industrial
Relations. If this court has, in cases of dispute, the power to set
wages as it considers fair and reasonable for the work day, there is
no reason not to have the same power regarding wages at night;
work is so what another one like it. And with regard wing
appreciation of the work at night is more cumbersome and expensive
than the day and, therefore, deserves more pay, there is no
motivospara revoke or alter. There is no possible argument against
the universal fact that the regular work, is the normal and ordinary
day, and that work at night is very exceptional and justified only for
certain reasons absolutely unavoidable. For something humanity has
trabajadosiempre day.
For reasons of hygiene, medicine, morality, culture, sociology, set
together that work at night has many drawbacks, and when there is
no choice but to do that is only fair remuneration that is better than a
regular indemnifying Hasan point the worker such drawbacks. There
is no doubt that working at night in the long run not only affects the
health of the worker, but this deprives him of certain things that
make relatively comfortable life, as Vgr. A full and uninterrupted
sleep and some moments of solace , Leisure and cultural or spiritual
expansion that would have to finish the job in the afternoon and
during the early hours of the night. It is said that the worker can rest
day after having worked all night, but we can give the rest of the
body that day and that tonic effect complete repairs that can only
provide the natural sleep at night? It also says that some prefer to
work at night under our scorching weather, thereby avoiding the heat
of the day. Many fear, however, that this is best spoken to Pratica.
We believe that since time immemorial universal rule is that the man
who works the night out of necessity more hopeless than pleasant
convenience.
In the opinion vulgar, universal, we must add the opinion pericial, the
criterion specialist. The views of scholars and experts militates
strongly in favor of the proposition that work at night is more
expensive and hard work that day, considering this with a strong
disgust and thus compel the capitalist managers to establish a scale
higher Wage as an incentive for workers to accept it. One could cite
viri authorities, but not to overstretch this paper we opted for only
some transcriber, 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 merits of the above, refusing the appeal of certiorari filed and

confirmed the judgement of the Court Of Reclaciones Industrial, with
costs to be borne by appellant. So is ordered.

Paras, Pres. Interino, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla and

Tuason, MM., estan conformes.

Footnotes

1
69 Phil., 635.

2
79 Phil., 409.