Mercury Drug Co., v. Dayao, et. al.

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982

MERCURY DRUG CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
NARDO DAYAO, ET AL., respondents,

Facts:

The respondents filed a petition against the petitioner praying: 1) payment of their unpaid back wages for work done on Sundays and legal holidays plus 25c/c additional compensation from date of their employment up to June 30, 1962; 2) payment of extra compensation on work done at night; 3) reinstatement of Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar to their former positions with back salaries; and, as against the respondent union, for its disestablishment and the refund of all monies it had collected from petitioners.

The respondent court rendered its decision that:

1. The claim of the petitioners for payment of back wages correspoding to the first four hours work rendered on every other Sunday and first four hours on legal holidays should be denied for lack of merit;

2. Respondent Mercury Drug Company, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay the sixty- nine (69) petitioners: (a) An additional sum equivalent to 25% of their respective basic or regular salaries for services rendered on Sundays and legal holidays during the period from March 20, 1961 up to June 30, 1962; and (b) Another additional sum or premium equivalent to 25% of their respective basic or regular salaries for nighttime services rendered from March 20, 1961 up to June 30, 1962; and

3. Petitioners' petition to convert them to monthly employees should be, as it is hereby, denied for lack of merit. Not satisfied with the decision, the respondents filed a motion for its reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration, was however, denied by the Court en banc.

Issues:

a.Whether or not private respondent is entitled to claims for 25% additional compensation performing work during Sunday and legal holidays.

b.Whether or not the 25% compensation had already been included in the private respondents monthly salaries.

c.Whether or not the contracts of employment were null and void was not put in issue, hence, the respondent court pursuant to the Rules of Court should have refrained from ruling that such contracts of employment were null and void.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, based on Sec. 4 CA No. 444, No person, firm or corporation, business establishment or place of center of labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays unless he is paid an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular remuneration: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this prohibition shall not apply to public utilities performing some public service such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of transportation or communication.

In this case, the petitioner does not fall on exemptions. On the second issue, their 25% additional compensation for work done on Sundays and Legal Holidays were not included in their respective monthly salaries. The petitioner contention was not supported by substantial evidence.

The last issue, the Mercury Drug Co., Inc., maintains a chain of drugstores that are open every day of the week and, for some stores, up to very late at night because of the nature of the pharmaceutical retail business. The respondents knew that they had to work Sundays and holidays and at night, not as exceptions to the rule but as part of the regular course of employment. Presented with contracts setting their compensation on an annual basis with an express waiver of extra compensation for work on Sundays and holidays, the workers did not have much choice. T

he private respondents were at a disadvantage insofar as the contractual relationship was concerned. Workers in our country do not have the luxury or freedom of declining job openings or filing resignations even when some terms and conditions of employment are not only onerous and inequitous but illegal.

It is precisely because of this situation that the framers of the Constitution embodied the provisions on social justice (Section 6, Article 11) and protection to labor (Section 9, Article I I) in the Declaration of Principles And State Policies.

Acknowledgement: Barbie Pinos