Sanchez v. Harry Lyons Construction Inc. et al

No. L-2779. October 18, 1950

P- Harry Lyons Construction Inc. et al

R- CFI Manila/ Daniel Sanchez et al

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·                   In Jan. 1947, Daniel Sanchez et al (other 10 workers) was employed by Harry Lyons as Carpenter Foreman, Warehousemen and Guards.
·         In Dec. 1947, they were dismissed by the Harry Lyons without one months' previous notice. They demanded payment of one month's salary, but the company refused.
·         The Municipal Court of Manila ruled in favor of the Sanchez et al, which was affirned by the CFI Manila.
·         On appeal to the CA, the petitioner argued that:

a.    In their contracts of employment, they agreed that their employment may be terminated at any time without previous notice; and that the use of the word "temporary" in their contracts of services show that their employment was with a term, and the term was "temporary, on a day to day basis.".

b.    They also executed an advance waiver on the benefit of Article 302 of the Code of Commerce and that of any other law, ruling, or custom which might require notice of discharge or payment of salary or wages after date of the termination of such employment.

Issues:

1.    WoN those paid on a monthly and daily basis, are entitled to the benefit granted in article 302 of the Code of Commerce.

2.    WoN, if they are so entitled, their waiver of such benefits was legal and valid.

Ruling:

1.    Yes, the law gives an added proviso that in the case of factors or shop clerks, these shall be entitled to salary during this one month of standing notice.

Under ART. 302- In cases in which no special time is fixed in the contracts of service, any one of the parties thereto may cancel it, advising the other party thereof one month in advance.  "The factor or shop clerk shall be entitled, in such case, to the salary due for said month."

The one-month notice must be given to them, because the two conditions concur: (a) that no special time is fixed in the contract of service, and (b) that said employee is a commercial employee. Consequently, when such notice is not given under these conditions, they are entitled to indemnity which may be one month's salary.

The word "temporary" as used in the contract does not mean the special time fixed in the contracts referred to in article 302 of the Code of Commerce. The daily basis therein stipulated is for the computation of pay, and is not necessarily the period of employment.

Thus, they are entitled to the payment of one month's salary.

2.    No, such a waiver made in advance is void as being contrary to public policy.

Public policy, with regard to labor, is clearly stated in article II, section 5, of the Philippine Constitution - "The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the concern of theState”; and article XIV, section 6 - "The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to working women and minors, and shall regulate the relations between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and in agriculture. * * *".

Article 302 of the Code of Commerce must be applied in consonance with these provisions of our constitution.

In the matter of employment bargaining, there is no doubt that the employer stands on higher footing than the employee. First of all, there is greater supply than demand for labor. Secondly, the need for employment by labor comes from vital and even desperate, necessity. Consequently, the law must protect labor, at least, to the extent of raising him to equal footing in bargaining relations with capital and to shield him from abuses brought about by the necessity for survival. It is safe to presume therefore, that an employee or laborer who waives in advance any benefit granted him by law does so, certainly not in his interest or through generosity but under the forceful intimidation of urgent need, and hence, he could not have so acted freely and voluntarily.

Thus, the decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED.