G.R. No.

L-1309             July 26, 1948

THE SHELL COMPANY OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LIMITED
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION

Acting on a petition of the labor entity called "National Labor Union," the Industrial
Relations Court has issued a decision in which, among other things, the oil firm "The Shell
Company of Philippine Islands, Limited" is obliged to pay to their workers who work at
night (since the sun sets until it rises the next day) an additional compensation of 50% on
their regular wages if they work during the day. It seems that the region is in need of night
service for a certain number of workers, as planes from abroad tend to land and take off
at night, which is why it is necessary that night work is done to supply gasoline and
lubricants, and to Other needs. The oil company has been exempted against this decision
from there the present appeal of certiorari for us to revoke it.

The recurring company alleges and argues that not only does there not exist any legal
provision that entitles 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 whenever the law provides the
cases in which the payment of "overtime" (additional compensation) is compulsory, and
among such cases does not include night work.

For its part, the labor union under appeal maintains that the power under discussion is
part of the broad and effective powers that Commonwealth Law No. 103 - the organic
letter of the Industrial Relations Court - grants to said court; and that Commonwealth Law
No. 444 that is invoked does not have any application to the present case, since it is
necessarily limited in scope, referring particularly and exclusively to the maximum day of
continuous work allowed in industrial establishments - the day of 8 hours.

Our conclusion is that the labor union under appeal is right on its part. For a clear and
thorough elucidation of the points discussed, we consider it convenient, even at the risk
of extending this paper, to transcribe the pertinent legal provisions that are Articles 1, 4
and 13 of Commonwealth Law No. 103. Here you are:

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, vgr. On the question of wages, the
Industrial Relations Court has jurisdiction throughout the Philippines to consider,
investigate and resolve said dispute, setting the wages it deems fair and reasonable; (b)
that for the purposes of prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, the same
Industrial Relations Court also has jurisdiction to hear of any dispute - industrial or
agricultural - resulting from any differences with respect to wages, shares or
compensation, hours of work, conditions of employment or 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 such dispute causes or may cause a strike; (c) that 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 resolving
the dispute or preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes.

In the case at hand there is undoubtedly an industrial disposition. While the company, the
Shell company, is not willing to pay its night workers higher wages than the outbound
workers, the "National Labor Union", to which the Shell workers are affiliated, claims
another type of salary for the service nocturnal - 50% more. This is the dispute, the
industrial litigation. Now, what has the Industrial Relations Court done after submitting the
conflict to its jurisdiction? For precisely what the aforementioned Commonwealth Law No.
103 mandates, an organic letter of its creation and operation, namely: to consider,
investigate and prosecute the dispute, resolving it later in the sense in which it has
resolved it, that is, remunerating the work at night with 50% more than day wages. And
this is perfectly legal both within the scope of Article 1 of the aforementioned Law No. 103
that empowers the Court of Industrial Relations to decide any dispute over wages and
compensation in the manner it deems reasonable and convenient, as well as within the
framework of the article. 4 of the same law that authorizes said court to prosecute and
decide any industrial or agricultural dispute or dispute determines the outbreak of a strike
or store to cause it. Moreover, what has been done by the Industrial Relations Court in
this case is also legal within the framework of article 13 of the same law No. 103, an
article that, as seen, not only empowers said court to grant the remedy that collect the
parties, but even to go beyond, that is, to grant remedies not expressly requested,
provided that they are directed to resolve the dispute at once or prevent the outbreak of
further disputes or strikes.

It is clear that with these broad powers the State has proposed to equip the Industrial
Relations Court to the maximum possible of utility and efficiency, making it not a simple
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 conflicts,
yagricolas of a certain class, preventing and avoiding in this way those strikes and strikes
that both afflict and harm not only companies and workers, but, in general, all community.
In his concurrent opinion issued in the authoritative case of Ang Tibay v Industrial
Relations Tribunal1 (R.G. No. 46496), Magistrate Laurel has rightly expressed the
fundamental idea that underlines the creation of said 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. (The italics are ours.)

The appellant argues, however, that although it is true that in case of dispute the Industrial
Relations Court has, by virtue of its organic law, the power to set wages, such power is
not absolute, but is subject to certain restrictions and clippers, provided in the law
commonly known by law on the eight-hour day, Commonwealth Law No. 444, whose
relevant articles are fully transacted 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.

As you wish - the appellant's lawyers argue - that 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 regular hours for urgent reasons of
urgency due to a disaster or accident, or to avoid loss or repair; (b) in case of work for
Sundays and holidays; (c) in case of emergency, and there is nothing that refers to night
work; then the order in question is illegal, as it is not authorized by law. "In the absence -
stress 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 Expressio unius est exclusio 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 in no others.
Commonwealth Act No. 444 cannot be enlarged by implication or otherwise Expressum
facit cessare tacitum.

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

In the case of Manila Electric, applicant-appellant, against The Public Utities Employees'
Association, 2 appealed, L-1206 (45 Off. Gaz., 1760), this Court has declared that the
power conferred by article 1 of the law Commonwealth No. 103 to the Industrial Relations
Court to prosecute and decide industrial disputes and disputes between capital and
labor, which includes the setting of salaries and compensation of employees and workers,
has been restricted by Article 4 of the Commonwealth Law No 444, which at the same
time that limits to 25% of the worker's salary or regular compensation the minimum of the
additional compensation that the court can grant for work on Sundays and official
holidays, exempts the payment of such additional compensation to the entities of public
utility that provide some public service, such as those that supply gas, electricity,
mortuary force, water, or provide means of transport or communication. Such restriction
becomes an exception to the general power of the court to set, in cases of dispute, the
salaries and compensation that employers must pay to employees and workers; and
since this article 4 refers only to salary or compensation for work during the days of
Sunday and official holidays, it is obvious that it cannot refer to salary or additional
compensation for work outside the eight-hour day that is generally done from the
beginning In the morning at the end of the afternoon, it is one thing to work on Sunday
days and official holidays, and another thing is to work at night or outside the eight-hour
day on weekdays. Applying the maximum legal "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," it
can be argued, without fear of being wrong, that a law that provides a specific exception
to its general provisions, such as additional compensation for work on Sunday days and
official holidays, excludes any another, such as additional compensation for night work on
weekdays. "Another case in which this maxim may almost invariably by followed is that of
statute 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 Commision Co. vs. 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 last night that the Shell company demands of its workers is not perhaps an
"overtime", in the sense that this word is used in Le No. 444, but is a full day of work, also
of 8 hours: only which, instead of being done by day, is done at night. In other words, the
night work in question here is not only an unexcess, extension or "overtime" of regular
day work, but it is another type of work, absolutely independent of the daytime. That is
why there are two shifts: the shift of workers who work during the day; and the turn of
those who work at night. So it is not surprising that the legislator has not included this
type of work among the cases of "overtime" indicated in the aforementioned law No. 444.

The question that, in our opinion, must be determined is whether among the general
powers of the Court of Industrial Relations that are admitted without a deputy, is to
consider the day at night as a full day of work; to estimate it as more burdensome than
the day; and consequently, to provide and order that it be reimbursed with 50% more of
the regular day wages. Our answer is affirmative: all this is included among the general
powers of the Industrial Relations Court. If this court has, in cases of dispute, the power
to set the wages it deems fair and reasonable for day work, 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 more expensive than
day work and, therefore, deserves higher pay, there is also no reason to revoke or alter it.
There is no possible argument against the universal fact that regular, normal and ordinary
work is day work, and that night work is very exceptional and justified only for certain
imperatively unavoidable reasons. For something humanity has always worked by day.

Reasons for hygiene, medicine, morals, culture, sociology, establish in common that the
work of nocho has many disadvantages, and when there is no choice but to do so, it is
only fair that it be better than ordinary to compensate until it is true. point to the worker of
such inconveniences. Undoubtedly, night work not only in the long run affects the health
of the worker, but also deprives him of certain things that make life relatively pleasant,
such as, for example, a complete and uninterrupted rest and certain times of solace. ,
leisure or spiritual and cultural expansion that you might have when you finish work in the
afternoon and during the first 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 full reparative effect that only the natural rest at night can provide? 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 since
time immemorial the universal rule is that man works at night more for an irremediable
need than for pleasurable convenience.

To the vulgar, universal opinion, we must add the expert opinion, the specialist criterion.
The opinion of the writers and experts strongly militates in favor of the thesis that night
work is harder and more expensive than day work, considering this with marked disgust
and consequently compelling capitalist management to establish a higher scale of wages
as an incentive for workers to accept it. You could cite virias authorities, but not to extend
this paper too much we opted to transcribe only 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 considered 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 considered 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.).

On the merits of the foregoing, the appeal filed by certiorari is denied and the judgment of
the Industrial Claims Court is confirmed, with costs incurred by the appellant. That's how
it is ordered.

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

Footnotes

1 69 Phil., 635.

2 79 Phil., 409.