Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Universal Corn Products, Inc., petitioner, is a corporation the capital stock of which is wholly owned by citizens o

Pursuant to the power vested in respondent Rice and Corn Board by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 3018, Resolu
No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines shall be employed in any capacity in any Filipino-owned establis

UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.,

The amended petition of February 8, 1961 after the averments as to the petitioners and respondents alleged:
1 Pursuant to the power vested in respondent Rice and Corn Board by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 3
No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines shall be employed in any capacity in any

2 Universal Corn Products, Inc., petitioner, is a corporation the capital stock of which is wholly owned b

3 It was then stated that all its employees numbering over 200 are Filipinos, with the exception of co-pe

Petitioners, filed a petition, agruing that the construction placed on Resolution No.10 for its retroactivity insofar a
olly owned by citizens of the Philippines and is engaged in certain lines of activity covered by Republic Act No. 3018 and Resolution No

lic Act No. 3018, Resolution No.10 was promulgated dated November 21, 1960, a particular regulation of which specifically provides
y Filipino-owned establishment engaged in any of the lines of activity in the rice and/or corn industry except technical personnel whose

espondents alleged:
6 of Republic Act No. 3018, Resolution No.10 was promulgated dated November 21, 1960, a particular regulation of which specifically p
d in any capacity in any Filipino-owned establishment engaged in any of the lines of activity in the rice and/or corn industry except techn

which is wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines and is engaged in certain lines of activity covered by Republic Act No. 3018 and Re

h the exception of co-petitioners, then holding the positions of executive vice-president, comptroller, sales manager, chief warehousema

ts retroactivity insofar as it would be made to apply to the alien petitioners with the result that their dismissal would be called for and for
3018 and Resolution No.10 of the Rice and Corn Board.

specifically provides
nical personnel whose employment may be authorized by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Rice and Corn

on of which specifically provides

rn industry except technical personnel whose employment may be authorized by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation

ic Act No. 3018 and Resolution No.10 of the Rice and Corn Board.

ger, chief warehouseman, assistant plant superintendent, cashier, and sales supervisor,3 and that such alien employees “have been w

uld be called for and for its unconstitutionality insofar as such individuals and other persons similarly situated would be deprived of their
n of the Rice and Corn Board."

s upon recommendation of the Rice and Corn Board."

mployees “have been with the Universal Corn Products, Inc. long before the enactment into law of Republic Act No. 3018 and the promu

uld be deprived of their means of livelihood without due process of law and would be denied the equal protection of the law.
No. 3018 and the promulgation of Resolution No.10 of the Rice and Corn Board."4

n of the law.
The amended petition of February 8, 1961 after the averments as to the petitioners and respondents alleged:
Rice and Corn Board by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 3018, respondent:
In pursuant to the power vested in by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 3018,
Promulgated Resolution No.10, on November 21, 1960
- a particular regulation of which specifically provides:
"No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines shall be employed in any capacity in any
Filipino-owned establishment engaged in any of the lines of activity in the rice and/or corn
industry except technical personnel whose employment may be authorized by the
President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Rice and Corn Board."

Universal Corn Products, Inc., petitioner.;

- a corporation the capital stock of which is wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines
- is engaged in certain lines of activity covered by Republic Act No. 3018 and Resolution No.10 of
the Rice and Corn Board.
- all its employees numbering over 200 are Filipinos, with the exception of co-petitioners, then
holding the positions of executive vice-president, comptroller, sales manager, chief
warehouseman, assistant plant superintendent, cashier, and sales supervisor.

- and that such alien employees “have been with the Universal Corn Products, Inc. long before
the enactment into law of Republic Act No. 3018 and the promulgation of Resolution No.10 of
the Rice and Corn Board."

Petitioners, filed a petition, agruing that the construction placed on Resolution No.10 for its retroactivity
insofar as it would be made to apply to the alien petitioners with the result that their dismissal would be
called for and for its unconstitutionality insofar as such individuals and other persons similarly situated
would be deprived of their means of livelihood without due process of law and would be denied the
equal protection of the law.

Respondents, admitted the allegations of the petition but denied the legal conclusion asserted by
petitioners to flow therefrom.
1 disputed the alleged retroactive character of the construction, the truth according to them being
that regardless of the date of employment, "upon the passage of Republic Act No. 3018 and the
regulation in question," which is a mere reproduction of Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act No. 108
as amended by Republic Act No. 134 " employment of aliens in the regulated industry has become
unlawful and contracts of employment entered prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 3018 have
become legally impossible of performance

2 denied the allegation of unconstitutionality on due process and equal protection grounds, the
statute being a valid measure under the police power of the state
3 respondents prayed for the dismissal of the petition, with costs

Lower Court, granted respondents' prayer and dismissed petitioners appeal.

Petitioners, granted respondents' prayer and dismissed petitioners appeal.

The decision must be affirmed. There is no valid ground for reversal. The contention that the interpretation by respondent
ondents alleged:

nterpretation by respondents of Resolution No.10 and Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act No. 108 suffers from the vice of retroactivity
om the vice of retroactivity or afflicted with the taint of unconstitutionality is far from persuasive.