CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

PEOPLE VS GATCHALIAN
GR no. L-12011-14, September 30, 1958

FACTS:

Alfonso Gatchalian the defendant was charged with a violation of section 3 of RA no. 604 (Minimum
wage law).

That Alfonso Gatchalian owner or manager of New Life Drug Store and having under his employ one
Expedito Fernandez as a salesman in the said establishment, did then willfully and feloniously, pay and
cause to be paid to said Expedito Fernandez, a monthly salary of P60 to P90 for the period of August 4,
1951 to December 31, 1953.

When arraigned on June 19, 1956, he pleaded not guilty.

On August 29, 1956, defendant filed a motion to dismiss

Defendant Contention:
1. The violation does not constitute criminal offense but carries only a civil liability
2. Even if does, the section of the law alleged to have been violated does not carry any penalizing it.

Petitioner Contention:
1. The law which was violated carries both civil and criminal liability.
2. That the law provides for the penalty for all willful violations of any of the provisions of the
Minimum Wage Law.

The court cancelled the bail bond filed by the accused and directed the Regional Representative of the
Department of Labor to immediately institute civil action against with the erring employer.

A motion for reconsideration having been denied, the government took the present appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused will be convicted for not paying Expedito Fernandez with minimum salary as
prescribed in RA 604?

RULLING:

No.

In plain reading with the provision in RA 604 section 3 and section, it explicitly requires every owner of
an establishment to pay each employee with the prescribed minimum salary rate, violation thereof will be
criminally liable. The intention of the law is clear: to slap not only a criminal liability upon an erring
employer for any willful violation of the acts sought to be enjoined but to attach concurrently a civil
liability for any underpayment he may commit as a result thereof.

To give proper interpretation of the law the court study the origin of our Minimum wage law. It was
found out the RA 604 was tailored with US fair labor standards. An examination of the provision of the
two acts shows that while the substance they are similar, they however contain some differences in their
phraseology an in the apportionment of their provisions. While Section 15(a) paragraph 2 of the fair labor
standards acts makes it unlawful for an employer not to pay the minimum wage prescribed thein, our
minimum wage law does not contain similar provision. Our law does not contain specification on what
acts declared unlawful, it merely provides “any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of this
act shall upon conviction” be subject to the penalty herein prescribed.

With restrictive interpretation of the provision it will defeat the objective of the law which is to provide
for a rock-bottom wage to be observed and by an employer. This would be a mockery and a derision of
the law not contemplated by our law maker which would certainly render it nugatory and abortive.

The court cannot therefore entertain the claim that because said provision was not declared unlawful it
cannot be subject to the penal sanction embodied in section 15.

Since the provisions of the law are ambiguous and there is doubt as the interpretation, the doubt should be
resolved in favor to the accused because a penal statue should be strictly construed against the state.

DISPOSTIVE:
The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.