Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9448)
Facts:
Baselides Marcelo, Juanito Bolano, Exequiel Naje, Felix San Mateo, Pascual Andrade, Marciano Ferrolino, Isidro Bongay, Antolin Balubar, Irineo Marquez, Jose T. Rico, Ulpiano Gutlay and Esteban Madera v. Philippine National Red Cross and its Board of Governors, G.R. No. L-9448. May 23, 1957, Supreme Court En Banc, Felix, J., writing for the Court.On January 25, 1955 the group of employees (plaintiffs) filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Philippine National Red Cross (defendant), alleging long-continued overtime work (ranging from 2 to 16 hours daily, including Sundays and holidays) beginning March 22, 1947, and claiming P5,000 each as the value of the overtime already earned; Esteban Madera also claimed underpayment under the Minimum Wage Law. The complaint sought injunctive relief against dismissal, payment of the claimed amounts, attorney’s fees and other relief.
Before answering, the Solicitor General, appearing for the Red Cross, moved for a bill of particulars, arguing the complaint failed to specify the overtime hours by plaintiff, the applicable salary rates over the years, dates of the alleged overtime (including Sundays/holidays), and the exact underpayment claimed by Madera. The trial court by order of February 18, 1955 required plaintiffs to amend their complaint to supply the particulars. After plaintiffs filed a bill of particulars giving aggregate alleged overtime hours per plaintiff (e.g., “14,000 hours,” “12,000 hours,” etc., without date-by-date entries) and other generalized figures, defendants filed, on March 23, 1955, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
After opposing pleadings and argument, the Court of First Instance, by order dated April 18, 1955, dismissed the complaint. The trial judge held that under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 444 (the Eight‑Hour Labor Law) the statutory phrase “persons employed in an industry or occupation” must be read as referring to the employer being engaged in an industry or occupation; because the Red Cross is a charitable, non‑profit, humanitarian organization (created and governed by Republic Act No. 95) and not an industrial or profit‑seeking enterprise, it is not “engaged in an industry or occupation” within the meaning of the statute, and thus its employees were not entitled as of right to the protections claimed under CA No. 444. The trial court remarked that administrative opinions (e.g., by Secretaries of Labor and Justice) were contrary, but declined to apply the statute to the Red Cross.
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and for trial was denied, and they appealed to the Supreme Court from the trial court’s order. On appeal they argued (1) the trial court erred in holding CA No. 444 inapplicable to the Red Cross, (2) the Red Cross is likewise not covered by Republic Act No. 602 (Minimum Wage Law), and (3) the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint. The S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Philippine National Red Cross “engaged in an industry or occupation” within the meaning of Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 444, so that its paid employees are covered by the Eight‑Hour Labor Law?
- Is Republic Act No. 602 (the Minimum Wage Law) applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims against the Philippine National Red Cross?
- Was the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for fai...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)