GENERAL PROVISIONS ART. 3 ied more than thirty ILO Conventions, including, significantly, the eight “core” conventions mentioned above. Accordingly, Froilan C. Bacungan, a labor law expert, asserts that the Philippines can claim with some pride that it belongs to the upper 25% of the ILO members on the basis of governmental efforts taken to approximate the imiegnational labor standards. olirlout cto i ART. 3. DECLARATION OF BASIC POLICY APERA 2 The State shall ifford protection to labor, Sromete full employment, Hsure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, ‘creed, and regulate she relations between workers and employers. The State shall A&sure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. COMMENTS L LABOR LAWS AND SOCIAL-ECONOMIC GOALS ‘The issues mentioned in this article — employment, protection to labor, labor-management relations — are social issues. They are concerns of labor laws because labor laws are devices for social equity. Labor laws, depending on their provisions and thrusts, may make the rich richer and the poor remain poor. Organize Article 3 is not a statement of goals but a statement of policy directions sowards the goals. The goals of the national economy, says the Constitution, are a more ‘equitable distribution of opportunities, incomie, and wealth; a sustained increase = the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of she people. The national economy definitely needs to expand productivity as she key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.' Those goals are the route to social justice, a route directed by laws, especially those sbout labor and employment. Labor laws, in other words, are a significant factor in a nation’s economy. They explain, partly but weightily, why a nation is poor or prosperous, why a ountry is competitive or not in the global market. Thus, the needs, the faults, states that sed the goals of the economy cannot be ignored in formulating the labor laws, Fundamental otherwise, the labor laws become purposeless, socially irrelevant, or economically ‘members to eeecing ratified the The classic The Idea of Law asserts that any attempt by law to regulate sexzictive practices by industry and trade unionsis likely to prove unconstructive © the inquiries and evidence of economists and sociologists are disregarded. 1949 (No. sessional Industrial exch 2004, p. 750. "article tution. ste (Westfalisches icle XII, Sec. 1, Constitution. "Dennis Floyd, The Idea of Law, 1987, p. 332. Be Wn AR Ger ig ow DY gol 25ART. 4 PRELIMINARY TITLE, 2 INTERDEPENDENCE ‘The two-sentence declaration of basic policy in Article 3 hardly mentions the employer except in the phrase “regulate the relations between workers and employers.” All other phrases pertain to rights of workers, But it should not be eruiced that the basic policy is to favor labor to prejudice capital. The plain reality is that both sectors need each other. They are interdependent — one is imutile without the other. Hence, the better understanding is that the basic policy is to balance or to coordinate the rights and interests of both workers and Employers. Article 3'of the Code, written in the early 1970s, should be viewed in the perspective of the 1987 Constitution which, as already stated, explicitly recognizes shared responsibility of employers and workers and the right of gnterprise to reasonable returns on investment and to expansion ancl growth, “ff _ ART. 4. CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR ‘All doubts in the imptementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be “resolved in favor of labor, COMMENTS AND CASES 1, INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION 1.1 Laborer’s Welfare; Liberal Approach, In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code’s provisions and its implementing regulations, the yyarking man’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in ‘Article 4 af the New Labor Code. The policy isto extend the decree’s applicability to-agreater number of employees to enable them to avail of the benefits yndct the Inw, in consonance with the State’s avowed policy to give maximum aid and protection to labor! In interpreting the Constitution’s protection to labor and social justice provisions and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the eonstitytdonal mandate, the Supreme Court adopts the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.* TAbella ve. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 71812, July 20) 1987. *Buro-Linea, Phils. Inc. vs, National Labor Relations Commission, G.R- No 178782, December 1, 1987; Manila Electric Company vs. National Labor Relatont Commission, G.R. No. 78763, July 12, 1989. 26 ghorr cover ath UsoWS oxen ant mee) Con evied GENERAL PROVISIONS ART. 4 1.2 Concern for Lowly Worker ___ The Supreme Court reaffirms its concern for the lowly worker who, often. his employer’s mercy, must look up to the a him with tenderness and ese ‘nays vit hand HOPE Pe - capaciy to help in shaping the nation’s future. He must not be taken é es abiding respect. How soci im de ther the Kite in his hands shall bea caring tool for ieinyiad progres ot BE ecapon of defiance and revenge. Ife cherishihim as-we sheoldjare esolve to lighten “the weight of centuries of exploitation and disdai ta his back but does not bow his head.” ee 1.8 Reason for According Greater Protection to Employees In the matter of employment bargaining, there i BIE som igherocstag than te employe. Freofel, there iaqrestes ly han demand for labor, Secondly, the need for employment bylabor« cons find cven-desperate, necessity. Consequently, the law muse protect ‘least, to the extent of raising him to equal footing in bargaining aioe ial and to shield him from abuses brought about by the necessity for a safe to presume, therefore, that an employee or laborer who ie © any benefit granted him by law does so, certainly not in his intere: : jh generosity but under the forceful intimidation of urgent need, cd w could not have so acted freely and voluntarily a 4 Justice, the Intention of the Law lection to labor and resolution of doubts in favor of labor cannot be ‘10 the point of deliberately committing a miscarriage of justice. The ‘obtain justice is enjoyed by all members of society, rich or poor, worker ier, alien or citizen, Justice belongs to every one. Itis not to be blinded B ot by the ee of one’s being economically underprivileged. ‘This nitted, ca Bi ec cnet taken to have superseded Article 10 of the Royal Plant {San Mi : Roya lant (San Miguel Conporton] ws Miniter of Labor, GR. No, Wer, et al. vs. Harry L % i , "s. Harry Lyons Construction Incorpora her 19, 1950, 40 Off. Gaz, 608, pinieebaet 27ART. 5 PRELIMINARY TITLE ‘The ruling may be different, however, if the company and the union have entered into a closedshop agreement, as will be explained in Book V of the Code. 24 Right to Transfer or Discharge Employees ‘An employer has the perfeettightto transfer, reduce or lay off personnel in. order to minimize expenses and to insure the stability of the business, and even’ to close the business. This right to transfer or discharge has been consistently upheld even in the present era of multifarious reforms in the relationship of capital and labor, provided the transfer or dismissal is not abused but is done in good faith and is due to causes beyond control. To hold otherwise would be oppressive and inhuman.! “The rights of employers and employees wil be detailed in ensuing chapters, particularly in Books IIL through VI ART, 5. RULES AND REGULATIONS ‘The Department of Labor and Employment and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of, their adoption in newspapers of general circulation, Rus hee sade He UP low eee th COMMENTS 1. RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE CODE Under Article 5, the Department of Labor and Employment shall make rules and regulations to implement the Code. (Those rules are reproduced in Part Tivo of the present work). It has been ruled that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they ar¢ entrusted to enforce have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect* ‘Thus, Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment providing for “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Employment of Filipino Domestic and Houschold Workers,” does not constitute an invalid exercise of legislative power. Itis true that police power is the domain of legislature, butit does not mean that such an authority may not ‘Gregorio Araneta Employees Union vs. Roldan, G.R. No. L-6846, July 20, 1955; Phil. Sheet Metal Workers Union vs. CIR, G.R. No, L-2028, April 28, 1949; Tiong Kin, ys. CIR, GR. No. 1-3587, December 21, 1951; and Roldan vs. Gebu Portland Cement Co., et al., CAG.R. No. 24276-R, May 20, 1960. *Rizal Empire Insurance Group vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R No. 73140, May 29, 1987. 30 GENERAL PROVISIONS ART. 6 be lawfully delegated, The Labor Code itselfin Artic fh 1 in Article 5 vests the Department of Tabor and Employment with rulemaking powers in the enforcement thereof! 1.1 When Invalid Arrule or regulation promulgated by an administrative body, such as the be eaentorTaecc tS abor, to nee Jementa law, in excess of its rule-making authority, For instance, the Rules and Regul: i i i nstance, gulations implementing Article 94 of Bi Code, and the accompanying Policy Instructions No. 9 limited the Bement 0 boliey pay to daily-paid employees only thereby excluding monthly-paid employees. But the law itself at . Be ra emptor itself states that “every worker” shall be The Court declared that those rules and regulatis tt that thos regulations as well as the poli ructions are null and void. By disentiing the monthly employees, the Tabor retary exceeded his rule-making authority. An administrative interpretation akes away a benefit granted in the law is ultra vires, that is, beyond one’s ART. 6. APPLICABILITY All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except ty otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether al or non-agricultural. , COMMENTS _ APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS ‘The question has arisen whether the Code applies, and the jurisdiction o partment of Labor extends, to government Sher hari pe ‘ent corporation incorporated unde: ode, Earlier, in the 1985 ruling in National Housing Corporation RA 172, the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine that employees ‘mentowned and/or controlled corporations, whether chartered by BBB ferried under the general Gorparation Law, were governed by the vice Law and not by the Labor Code. This doctrine is now obsolete as it ot supplanted by the present [1987] Constitution, which provides: “The ee embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentaliies nd agencies ernnes ,inchiding governmentowned or controlled corporations with Hers ilippine Association of Service E cr il a * Anocs F Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, 1G Fimployees Union vs, Clave, G.R, No, 49582, January 7, 1986, 3PRELIMINARY TITLE . GENERAL PROVISIONS ART. 6 ART. 6 and controlled corporations “with original rr i : ‘or instance, the National P: d by special law from Congress as al Parks Development Commit ieee | Mtns esata co n fe€S are CO' il tion. Its ne present ata ofthe law, the test i covered by cil ervce rules ad regulations, since they rec ation is subject 7 The government-owned charter” refer to corporations chartere distinguished from corporations organize statute, the Corporation Code. Thus, unde! in determining whether a government-owned or controlled co to the Civil Service Law is the manner of its creation. subject to Givil Service rules 8 : : ag mu atc Par Development Committee employees are allowed ss 987 ion to organize and join unions of their choice, there i Jaw permitting them to strike, In ease of a labor dispute between the employees Ane sence COROT as ‘ dithe oe | wy Sy rruNTs ae ee ‘of E.O. No. 180, dated June 1, 1987 provides EN sere i ‘The PNOGEDG, (Philippine National Oil Corp. Energy Development Finployment, shall hear Te aes not the Departinent of Labor Corp.) having been incorporated under the general Corporation Law, is a ‘ Similarly, employees of the Social Security System (SSS) are civil service governmentowned or controlled corporation. Its employees subject to the a. yi “ 7 ee . When Eats provisions of the Labor Code, among ‘which are those on the rights to unionize stations pee a onene. the Regional Trial Court, not the National Ee aioatiber | eS ih jurisdiction to hear the petition to enjoin the Similarly, the Food Terminal, Inc. is a governmentowned and controlled ee lo. 180 applies, not the Labor Code.” corporation without original charter. The ‘Department of Laborand Employment, Notwithstanding the above rulings, it should be noted that the Labor the dispute arising sions on the State Insurance Fund (Article 172, et seg.) do SaBHe a ‘and not the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over from employment with FTI. The terms and conditions ‘of such employment are governed by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations P \CABILITY WITHOUT EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP Finally, considering that the NHA (National Housing Corp.) was i incorporated under Act 1459, the former corporation law, itis a goverer™eit, Begg cry He BARLEY are ok employers and oom controlled corporation whose employees are subject the provisions of pedis 1 ounce Worl lance correct to say thatemployment the Labor Code. The NHA is within the jurisdiction of the Depa tment of Labor Ip 18 2 pre-condition to the applicability of the Code. see Employment, itbeing a government-owned and/or controlled corer) Ih one speaks of employ ; aethout an original charter, The workers or employees of the NHG (now NHA) Or of unionization, ae (eg., overtime pay or rest day Ihave the right to form unions or employees’ organizations* 1 the issue, for instance, eee eon oma itment, o es f lity, 2, NON-APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ment, or misuse of POEA license, there is no erent :. "The terms governmental “agency” or “instramencality” are synonymovs in Me istons may ean the respondent, and yet the ee, he sega dhat either of them isa means by which a government acts, or by whit eee nr dente ‘a certain government act or function is performed. The word “instrumentality,” Beolied: ip between the disputants, depending on the adi respect to the state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegate government power for the performance ofa state function. a | His resolved by applying Labor Code provisi i : y provisions, the implementi aaa court rulings. Employment relationship is er atdined ia contrasted to labor contracting in Articles 106 to 109. jinent personnel covered by the GSIS. No. 1-69870, November 29, 1988, ——_. "See National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, Corp., GR. No. 98107, August 1! YJuco vs. NLR and National Housing 1997. suzon Development Bank vs. Association of Lauzon Development Bank Employees, lal, GR, No. 120819, October 6, 1995, 64 SCAD 918. lr ys, Court of Appeals, G.R, No. 87676, December 20, 1989. , G.R, No, 87676, December 20, 1989, Becurity System Em i i ployces Association [SSSI ie abargjaiy 36-108 ion [SSSEA], ef al. vs. Court of 88