Title
Caltex , Inc. vs. Quitoriano
Case
G.R. No. L-7152
Decision Date
Mar 21, 1956
Oil companies challenged Wage Board creation under Minimum Wage Law, alleging lack of investigation, due process, and citing collective agreements. Court upheld Board, ruling investigation sufficient, due process met, and agreements don’t bar wage regulation.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7152)

Facts:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Secretary of Labor complied with the legal requirements under Section 4(a) of the Minimum Wage Law before appointing the Wage Board.
  2. Whether the petitioners were denied due process by not being heard before the Wage Board's appointment.
  3. 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)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.