Asia Bed Factory vs.

Kapok Industrial Workers Union

March 16, 2016

PONENTE: J. REYES

SYLLABUS:

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; IMPOSSIBLE OF PERFORMANCE,

BLUE SUNDAY LAW. — Where the collective bargaining agreement between employer and employee
provides among other things for mutual prestation in that employees now paid in the monthly basis
shall be paid under said agreement on the daily basis at rates based on their present compensation plus
the additional increase of (P0.30) thirty centavos a day, with the understanding that these employees
shall be provided with work on Sundays at time and one-half and that in the event no work on Sundays
is available through no fault of the employees, they shall be entitled to payment of the equivalent of
their wages as if they had performed work on that day. However, when the Blue Sunday Law which
prohibits the opening of commercial and industrial establishments on Sunday was enforced, prestation
became impossible of performance. Held: That the employer is relieved from complying with its
agreement to pay laborers Sunday wages.

FACTS:

The Asia Bed Factory entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Kapok Industrial Workers
Union to pay their employees on a daily basis at 30 centavos a day, including Sundays, and that in the
event that there will be no work on Sundays through no fault of the employees, the employees will still
be entitled to payment.

When Republic Act No. 946 otherwise known as Blue Sunday Law was enacted, prohibiting the opening
of any commercial, industrial or agricultural enterprises on Sundays, the Asia Bed Factory was forced to
comply.

Because some of the employees allege that the Asia Bed Factory did not comply with the agreement,
the Factory filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila for a declaratory judgement. By way
of answer, the Union filed a motion for a summary judgement declaring that the employees were
entitled to Sunday wages. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the Asia Bed Factory.
Reconsideration of the judgement having been denied, the Union appealed to the Supreme Court on
pure question of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the approval of the Blue Sunday Law relieved petitioner from complying with its
agreement to pay its employees Sunday wages.

RULING:

Yes. The bargaining agreement gives the employer the right to provide work on Sundays. However, it
would be an injustice if the employer is deprived of this right, by virtue of the Blue Sunday Law, without
at the same time relieving him of the obligation to pay the employees.

The Blue Sunday Law rendered it legally impossible for the Asia Bed Factory to comply with the
agreement. Hence, the Factory is released of its obligation to pay Sunday wages.

Occeña vs. Jabson

March 20, 2016

Case Digest

G.R. No. L-44349 October 29, 1976

Jesus V. Occeña and Efigenia C. Occeña

vs.
Hon. Ramon V. Jabson

Facts:

The court reverses the Court of Appeals appealed resolution. The Civil Code authorizes the release of an
obligor when the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the
parties but does not authorize the courts to modify or revise the subdivision contract between the
parties or fix a different sharing ratio from that contractually stipulated with the force of law between
the parties. Private respondent’s complaint for modification of the contract manifestly has no basis in
law and must therefore be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

On February 25, 1975 private respondent Tropical Homes, Inc. filed a complaint for modification of the
terms and conditions of its subdivision contract with petitioners, making the following allegations: “That
due to the increase in price of oil and its derivatives and the concomitant worldwide spiraling of prices,
which are not within the control of plaintiff…”. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint principally for
lack of cause of action. Respondent court in its questioned resolution of June 28, 1976 set aside the
preliminary injunction previously issued by it and dismissed petition on the ground that under Art.1267
“When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties,
the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.”

Issue: Whether or not the court is right in reversing its decision?

Ruling: Yes, for failure to state a sufficient cause of action.

Lopez Vito v. Tambunting

March 12, 2016

FACTS
A owed B a sum of money. B sent a receipt signed by him to A through a collector, who was supposed to
collect a debt. A did not pay, however, although he kept the receipt. The creditor (B) was able to prove
that the only reason he had sent the receipt was to collect the money.

ISSUE

Is there remission here?

HELD

No, there is no remission here; the creditor has been able to prove the real reason why the debtor had
in his possession the receipt. Hence, the presumption of remission has been overcome.