Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

G.R. NO.

L-22008 NOVEMBER 3, 1924

PEOPLE, Plaintiff - appelle V. POMAR, defendant-appellant.

JOHNSON, J.:

Section 13 of Act No. 3071 is as follows:

Every person, firm or corporation owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description shall be obliged
to grant to any woman employed by it as laborer who may be pregnant, thirty days vacation with pay before and another
thirty days after confinement: Provided, That the employer shall not discharge such laborer without just cause, under the
penalty of being required to pay to her wages equivalent to the total of two months counted from the day of her discharge.

Section 15 of the same Act is as follows:

Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty
pesos nor more than two hundred and fifty, or by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or
both, in the discretion of the court.

The important question at hand is whether or not the provisions of S13 and S15 of Act No. 3071 are a reasonable and
lawful exercise of the police power of the state.

Julio Pomar was a manager of a Tobacco factory named La Flor De La Isabela who employed Macaria Fajardo as cigar-
maker

1. Macaria Fajardo was granted a vacation leave by reason of pregnancy

On the October 26, 1923, the prosecutor of the City of Manila presented a complaint in the Court of First Instance

 Accusing the defendant in violation S13 in connection with S15 of Act No. 3071 of the PL
 The defendant willfully, and feloniously fail and refuse to pay Macaria Fajardo (whom was granted vacation leave
by reason of pregnancy) P80 (she was entitled as her regular wage)
 The defendant then contended that the sections mentioned in the Act No. 3071 was illegal, unconstitutional and
void.

Upon the consideration of the facts in the complaint, the defendant was found guilty

 And was fined P50, in accordance to S15 of the Act No. 3071

The Defendant then appealed, and made some assignments of error:

 Not declaring S13 of Act No. 3071 unconstitutional

Section 13 was enacted by the Legislature in the exercise of its supposed police power, with the intent of safeguarding the
health of pregnant women laborers in “factory,shop or place of labor of any description”

But first it is important to define what is this police power, and what are its limit and scope. The court opined that there are
many definitions of police power that were obtained from hundreds of decisions that varies.

A definition of the police power of the state must depend upon the particular law and the particular facts to which it is to be
applied. Sir William Blackstone, one of the greatest expounders of common law, defines police power as “as the due
regulation and domestic order of the Kingdom, whereby the inhabitants of a state, like members of a well-governed family,
are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, good neighborhood, and good manners, and to be
decent, industrtious, and inoffensive in their respective stations.”

 Prevention of evils
 Justice Cooley: The police power is the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make laws either
with penalties or without, Not repugnant to the constitution…”
 That every holder of property,that his use of it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an
equal right to the enjoyment of their property no injurious to the rights of the community. All property in the state
is held subject to its general regulations
Example given by court

 A hotel company employed a woman as elevator operator with wage of P35 per month and two meals a day
under healthy working conditions. Her wages was below the minimum
 There was a board that created a law fixing the minimum wage and penalizing those that do not follow this law.
 The wage paid by the hotel was below the minimum wage
 The new law would make her lose her job since the hotel could not pay that high of a wage, hence she will be
discharged
 She filed a case enjoining the hotel from discharging her and on the grounds that the Minimum Wage Act would
deprive her of her employment and wages without due process of law
 The Supreme Court of the US held that the Act was unconstitutional and void on the grounds that the right to
contract about one’s own affairs was a part of the liberty of the individual under the constitution

That the right of a person to sell their labor in their own terms is their right, which at the same time, the purchaser of labor
also has the same right of choosing a laborer in accordance to his own terms. This is a constitutional right of the liberty of
persons to create or terminate contracts

 As such the right to liberty includes the right to enter into contracts and to terminate contracts

In the case at hand the Minimum Wage Act deprives the owner of the liberty to terminate his contract

There is nothing in the contract of employment that states that the owner is to pay the women her wages on her
wages 30 days before and after confinement. The Minimum Wage Act would violate that contract by introducing
an obligation which was not founded therein. It will violate the constitutional right of the owner to terminate
contract.

 “As civilization develops and public conscience becomes awakened, the police power may be extended, as has
been demonstrated in the growth of public sentiment with reference to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
liquors.”

Any contracting parties can form any agreements, terms, and conditions they deem fit, provided that they are not contrary
to law, morals or public policy

Issue: Whether or not S13 of Act No. 3071 violates the right of individuals to a lawful contract

Ruling:

The provisions of S13 of Act No. 3071 of the PL are unconstitutional and void. For the Section 13 of that act violates the
right of parties to enter into a private contract

The right to enter into a lawful contract is one of the liberties given by the constitution

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi