Title
People vs. Gatchalian
Case
G.R. No. L-12011-14
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1958
Alfonso Gatchalian, owner of New Life Drug Store, was charged for underpaying an employee below the minimum wage under RA 602. The Supreme Court ruled that willful underpayment constitutes a criminal offense, reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding the case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138400)

Key Individuals and Context

  • Alfonso Gatchalian: owner/manager of New Life Drug Store in Zamboanga City
  • Expedite Fernandez: salesman employed by Gatchalian, alleged underpaid
  • Court of First Instance of Zamboanga: trial court below
  • Supreme Court of the Philippines: issuing court under the 1935 Constitution

Petitioner and Respondent

  • Petitioner: The People of the Philippines (represented by the City Attorney of Zamboanga)
  • Respondent: Alfonso Gatchalian

Key Dates

  • Alleged underpayment period: August 4, 1951 to December 31, 1953
  • Arraignment: June 19, 1956 (plea: not guilty)
  • Motion to dismiss filed: August 29, 1956
  • Trial court order dismissing informations: December 3, 1956
  • Supreme Court decision: September 30, 1958

Applicable Law

  • Republic Act No. 602 (Minimum Wage Law)
    • Section 3 – Establishes prescribed minimum daily wage rates
    • Section 15 – Prescribes criminal penalties for wilful violations and civil remedies for unpaid wages
  • Philippine Constitution of 1935 (governing charter at time of decision)

Procedural History
Gatchalian was charged in four informations under Section 3 of R.A. 602 for willfully paying wages (P60–P90 monthly) below the statutory minimum, resulting in an alleged P1,016.64 underpayment. After pleading not guilty, his counsel moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute imposed only civil liability and that Section 3 carried no penalty. The trial court granted the motion, dismissed the informations with costs, and ordered a civil suit for unpaid wages. The People appealed.

Provisions of Republic Act No. 602

  • Section 3(a): Requires employers outside Metro Manila to pay at least P3/day for one year, thereafter P4/day.
  • Section 15(a): Imposes a fine of up to P2,000, or upon second conviction up to one year’s imprisonment (or both) for any wilful violation of the Act.
  • Section 15(e): Grants civil remedies for underpayment—recovery of unpaid wages with interest and attorney’s fees.

Penal Clause and Civil Liability under R.A. 602
The Court emphasized that Section 15(a) encompasses “any wilful violation of any of the provisions of this Act,” including the fundamental duty in Section 3 to pay the prescribed minimum wage. Section 15(e) concurrently creates civil liability for unpaid wages, ensuring both criminal and civil sanctions operate together.

Comparative Analysis with the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act
The Court noted that R.A. 602 was modeled after the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. Although both laws impose criminal penalties and civil liabilities for wage violations, R.A. 602 differs in dispersing unlawful acts across multiple sections rather than consolidating them, and in extending criminal sanction to any statutory provision—including minimum‐wage requirements—whereas the FLSA criminalizes only expressly enumerated acts.

Interpretation of the Penal Clause under R.A. 602
Given the law’s remedial and protective purpose, a restrictive construction of Section 15(a) that excludes Section 3 would undermine enforcement. The Court held that the statutory phrase “any of the provisions of this Act” clearly covers the nonpayment of the minimum wage. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent to provide an effective deterrent beyond mere civil recovery.

Appellee’s Argument on Scope of Section 15(a)
Gatchalian argued that Section 15(a) should apply only to offenses expressly declared unlawful (e.g., payment in coupons, discrimination, false records), not to administrative duties of officials or to the substantive minimum‐wage requirement. He warned that a broader reading would expose enforcement officials and local government employers to criminal prosecution.

Court’s Rejection of Appellee’s Construction
The Court distinguished substantive employer obligations (e.g., Section 3) from administrative duties of officials (enforced by removal under Section 18(c)). It held that administrative provisions are enforced by administrative sanction, whereas substantive provisions carry criminal liability under Section 15(a). The




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.