Automotive Parts & Equipment Co., v. Lingad

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. JOSE B. LINGAD, (D)
G.R. No. L-26406, October 31, 1969

FACTS:

• In the petition for declaratory relief, the then Secretary of Labor, Jose B. Lingad and the then Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, Ruben F. Santos being named as respondents, appellant Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Incorporated alleged that it was duly incorporated on January 5, 1961 and that from the start of its operation, its employees were paid on a daily and monthly basis.
• April 21, 1965 the aforesaid amendatory act took effect and that respondents construed its provision "in such a way as to require the petitioner to increase the salaries of all the monthly paid employees of the petitioner to a minimum of P180.00 (not P152.00) which according to them is the applicable minimum wage rate for the monthly paid employees.
• Petitioner sought to justify its refusal to abide by the interpretative bulletin of respondents requiring the increase to a minimum of P180.00 a month for employees paid on a monthly basis in this wise: The petitioner believes that Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 602 particularly that portion prohibiting the reduction of wages paid to employees in excess of the minimum wage established in the Act only refers and applies to employers in business prior to and at the time of enactment Act and that the prohibition thereof against reduction of supplements as envisioned in Sec 19 should not be applied prospectively to employers coming into existence subsequent to the effective date of said Act.
• The lower court rejected such a contention. Thus: "Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 4180 provides that 'Any provision of law previously enacted on the subject matter of this Act that is inconsistent with any provision of this Act is hereby repealed.' Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 602 not being inconsistent with R.A. No. 4180 has not been repealed; on the other hand, the provisions of Section 19 of R.A. No. 602 not being inconsistent with R.A. No. 4180 were deemed and impliedly re-enacted.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not the lower court decided the matter correctly.

HELD:

• Yes, the lower court decided the matter correctly. Even if the plain legislative purpose so evident on the face of the statute is not to vitalize and implement what the Constitution enjoins, still there is no escape from an equally authoritative principle of statutory construction that bars acceptance on what appellant would foist upon the judiciary as an acceptable interpretation. "It is fundamental that once the policy or purpose of the law has been ascertained, effect should be given to it by the judiciary. From Ty Sue v. Hord, decided in 1909, it has been our constant holding that the choice between conflicting theories falls on that which best accords with the letter of the law and with its purpose. The next year, in an equally leading decision, United States v. Toribio, there was a caveat against a construction that would tend 'to defeat the purpose and object of the legislator.'
• If the interpretation offered by appellant would be considered acceptable, then there would be a negation of the above purpose of the amendatory act increasing the minimum wage law. That would be to defeat and frustrate rather than to foster its policy. It must be rejected.