Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7152)
Facts:
The case involves Caltex (Philippines) Inc., Standard-Vacuum Oil Company, and the Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. as petitioners against Aurelio Quitoriano, the Acting Secretary of Labor, as the respondent. The events leading to this case began with a report from the Acting Chief of the Wage Administration Service dated October 3, 1953, which highlighted the labor conditions in the mineral oil industry. The report indicated that there were four oil companies operating in the Philippines with approximately 3,000 employees. It noted that the estimated living cost for a family of 4.9 members in the Manila area was around P128 monthly or P5.03 per day, while the recommended adequate diet cost at least P6 daily, leading to a minimum adequate standard of living between P6 and P7 per day. The report also revealed that employees in the oil industry were earning P6.40 or less per day, with a reported minimum wage of P5.01. Based on these findings, the Acting Secretary of Labor ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7152)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioners: Caltex (Philippines) Inc., Standard-Vacuum Oil Company, and The Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd.
- Respondent: Honorable Aurelio Quitoriano, Acting Secretary of Labor.
Background:
- The petitioners are dealers in mineral oils and allied products.
- The Acting Chief of the Wage Administration Service submitted a report dated October 3, 1953, to the Secretary of Labor, highlighting labor conditions in the oil industry.
- The report revealed:
- Four oil companies operated in the Philippines with around 3,000 employees.
- The estimated living cost for a family of 4.9 members in Manila was P128 monthly or P5.03 daily.
- The recommended daily cost for an adequate standard of living was between P6 and P7.
- Employees in the oil industry earned P6.40 or less daily, with a reported minimum wage of P5.01.
Administrative Action:
- Based on the report, the Secretary of Labor issued Administrative Order No. WB-6(a), creating a Wage Board for the Oil Industry under Section 4(a) of the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602).
Petitioners' Claims:
- The petitioners challenged the validity of Order WB-6(a), arguing:
- No investigation was conducted before the Wage Board's appointment.
- The Secretary of Labor did not render an opinion that a substantial number of employees received insufficient wages.
- There was no proof to justify the Secretary's opinion.
- Employers were not heard before the Wage Board's appointment.
- The petitioners challenged the validity of Order WB-6(a), arguing:
Issue:
- Whether the Secretary of Labor complied with the legal requirements under Section 4(a) of the Minimum Wage Law before appointing the Wage Board.
- Whether the petitioners were denied due process by not being heard before the Wage Board's appointment.
- Whether the existence of collective bargaining agreements bars the establishment of a Wage Board under the Minimum Wage Law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)