Case Summary (G.R. No. 22008)
Procedural Background
• Complaint filed October 26, 1923, under sections 13 and 15 of Act No. 3071
• Demurrer to complaint overruled; respondent admitted all factual allegations but challenged constitutionality of section 13
• Trial court found respondent guilty, imposed P50 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment) and costs
• Appeal contests overruling of demurrer, conviction, and constitutionality of section 13
Statutory Provisions (Act No. 3071)
Section 13: Entitles any pregnant female laborer in a factory, shop or place of labor to thirty days’ paid leave before and thirty days after confinement; penalizes discharge without just cause by imposing two months’ wages.
Section 15: Prescribes fines (P50–P250), imprisonment (10 days–6 months), or both for any violation; holds corporate officers criminally liable for breaches.
Constitutional Framework
Applicable Constitution: Philippine Organic Act of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916, incorporating due‐process guarantees.
Key Provision: No person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.
Constitutional Issue
Does section 13 exceed the legislature’s police power by infringing the freedom of contract and due‐process rights of employers?
Definition and Scope of Police Power
• Police power permits enactment of reasonable regulations to protect public health, safety, morals and welfare.
• Boundaries of that power derive from the constitution; it cannot abrogate fundamental liberties.
• Authority must be exercised without arbitrary interference in private contracts.
Analysis of Section 13 Under Freedom of Contract
• Section 13 unilaterally imposes specific terms on every employment contract with a woman who may become pregnant, regardless of prior agreement.
• It deprives employers of the liberty to negotiate wages or to condition employment as they see fit.
• By criminalizing contracts that omit its maternity‐leave requirement, the statute intrudes on the constitutional right to contract.
Comparative Precedents on Contractual Liberty
• U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Allgeyer v. Louisiana; Lochner v. New York; Adkins v. Children’s Hospital; Coppage v. Kansas; Adair v. United States)
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 22008)
Background and Procedural History
- On October 26, 1923, the City of Manila’s prosecuting attorney filed a complaint under sections 13 and 15 of Act No. 3071, alleging that defendant Pomar, manager of La Flor de la Isabela tobacco factory, unlawfully failed to pay statutory maternity wages.
- The complaint asserted that Macaria Fajardo, a pregnant cigar maker, had been granted vacation leave beginning July 16, 1923, and that despite her delivery on August 12, 1923, Pomar refused her P80 in wages for thirty days before and after confinement.
- Pomar demurred, claiming the complaint did not state an offense; the trial court overruled the demurrer. He then admitted all factual allegations but challenged the constitutionality of section 13.
- The Court of First Instance (Judge Imperial) convicted Pomar, imposing a P50 fine (or subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent) plus costs, under section 15.
- Pomar appealed, assigning as error (1) overruling of the demurrer, (2) his conviction, and (3) the court’s failure to declare section 13 unconstitutional.
Statutory Provisions at Issue
- Section 13, Act No. 3071: requires all factory, shop or labor employers to grant pregnant female employees 30 days’ paid leave before and after confinement, and forbids their discharge without just cause under penalty of two months’ wages.
- Section 15, Act No. 3071: prescribes penalties—fine of ₱50–₱250, or imprisonment of 10 days–6 months, or both—for any violation; holds corporate officers criminally responsible.
Central Issue
- Whether sections 13 and 15 of Act No. 3071 constitute a reasonable and lawful e