IBP v. Hon. Ronaldo B.

Zamora
G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

FACTS: In view of alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, the president,
invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief, in a verbal directive, ordered the
PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the purpose of crime
prevention and suppression. The PNP Chief formulated a letter of instruction
(LOI) which detailed the manner by which the joint visibility patrols and was
placed under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the official organization of Filipino lawyers
questioned the validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist
PNP law enforcement.

ISSUE: Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility
patrols violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the the
military and the civilian character of the PNP.

HELD: The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of civilian supreme
clause that the calling of Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of
military assets for civilian enforcement. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is
the overall leader of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility. Under the LOI,
police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on patrol procedures. It is
their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the Marines.
Furthermore, the deployment of Marines to assist the PNP does not make the
civilian character of the police force neither does it amount to an insidious
incursion of the military in task of the law enforcement.

Considering the above circumstance, the Marines render nothing more than
assistance required in conducting patrols. As such, there can be no insidious
incursion of the military in civilian affairs nor can be violated of civilian
supremacy clause in the Constitution. It is worth mentioning that military
assistance to civilian authorities in various forms in Philippine Jurisprudence. The
Philippine experience reveals that it is not averse request the assistance of the
military in the implementation and execution of certain traditions civil actions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed.

National Federation of Sugar Workers v. Ovejera

114 SCRA 354 (1982)
FACTS: National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) has been the bargaining agent of Central
Azucacera de la Carlota (CAC) rank and file employees. On November 28, 1981, NFSW
struck allegedly to compel the payment of 13 th month pay under PD 851, in addition to
the Christmas, milling and amelioration being enjoyed by CAC workers. Under the
compromise agreement between CAC and NSFW, to settle a strike, the parties agree to
abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in case of 13 th month pay. Upon the
decision rendered, the case was dismissed and was denied for motion for
reconsideration.

NFSW renewed their demand however, CAC refused. NSFW filed a strike notice and six
days after, NFSW struck. CAC filed a petition that the strike was illegally done and was
affirmed by the court.

ISSUE: Whether under PD 851 (13th month pay), CAC Is obliged to give its workers a 13 th month
salary in addition to Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses.

HELD: As stated in PD 851, “all employers are hereby required to pay salary of not more than
all their employees receiving a basic of P1000 a month, regardless of their nature”. Also
on sec. 2 provides an exemption. “Employers were already paying their employees of
13th month pay or its equivalent”, according to the rules implemented on PD 851 that
the term equivalent shall include Christmas bonus, profit sharing and other bonuses.

It is clear that 13th month pay is form of additional income to employees not already
receiving the same. Otherwise, what was conceived to be a 13 th month salary would in
effect become 14th. That the intention of the law is to provide relief, but only to the
unfortunate ones not actually paid a 13 th month salary or what amounts to it.

Pragmatic considerations weighs heavily in favor of credit both voluntary and

contractual bonuses. To require employers who already given a 13 month salary or its
equivalent, to again pay a second 13 th month pay would be unfair and productive of
undesirable results. Moreover, the employer who had complied and is already bound to
give bonuses to his employees, the additional burden of a 13 th month pay would amount
to a penalty munificence and liberty.

NFSW cannot insist on the claim that its members are entitled for a 13 th month salary.