EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-32052. July 25, 1975.]

PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS, REUEL ABRAHAM, MILAGROS ABUEG, AVELINO ACOSTA, CAROLINA ACOSTA,
MARTIN AGSALUD, JOSEFINA AGUINALDO, GLORIA ALBANO, ANTONIO ALUNING, COSME
ALVAREZ, ISABEL ALZATE, AURORA APUSEN, TOMAS ARCANGEL, LOURDES ARJONILLO, MANUEL
AROMIN, DIONISIO ASISTIN, JOSE AURE, NICASIO AZNAR, EUGENIO AZURIN, CLARITA
BACUGAN, PIO BALAGOT, HEREDIO BALMACEDA, ESTHER BANAAG, JOVENCIO BARBERO, MONICO
BARBADILLO, HERNANDO BARROZO, FILIPINA BARROZO, REMEDIO BARTOLOME, ANGELINA
BASCOS, JOSE BATALLA, ALMARIO BAUTISTA EUGENIO BAUTISTA, JR., HERMALO BAUTISTA,
JUANITO BAUTISTA, SEVERINO BARBANO, CAPPIA BARGONIA, ESMERALDA BERNARDEZ, RUBEN
BERNARDEZ, ALFREDO BONGER, TOMAS BOQUIREN, ANGELINA BRAVO, VIRGINIA BRINGA,
ALBERTO BUNEO, SIMEON CABANAYAN, LUCRECIA CACATIAN, LEONIDES CADAY, ANGELINA
CADOTTE, IGNACIO CALAYCAY, PACIFICO CALUB, RUFINO CALUZA, CALVIN CAMBA, ALFREDO
CAMPOSENO, BAGUILITA CANTO, ALFREDO CARRERA, PEDRO CASES, CRESCENTE CASIS,
ERNESTO CASTANEDA, HERMINIO CASTILLO, JOSE CASTRO, LEONOR CASTRO, MADEO CASTRO,
MARIA PINZON CASTRO, PABLO CATURA, RESTITUTO CESPADES, FLORA CHACON, EDMUNDO
CORPUZ, ESTHER CRUZ, CELIA CUARESMA, AQUILINO DACAYO, DIONISIA DASALLA, SOCORRO
DELFIN, ABELARDO DIAZ, ARTHUR DIAZ, CYNTHIA DIZON, MARCIA DIZON, ISABELO DOMINGO,
HONORATA DOZA, CAROLINA DUAD, JUSTINIANO EPISTOLA, ROMEO ENCARNACION, PRIMITIVO
ESCAÑO, ELSA ESPEJO, JUAN ESPEJO, RIZALINA ESQUILLO, YSMAEL FARINAS, LORNA FAVIS,
DAN FERNANDEZ, JAIME FERNANDEZ, ALFREDO FERRER, MODESTO FERRER, JR., EUGENIO
FLANDEZ, GUILLERMO FLORENDO, ALFREDO FLORES, DOMINGA FLORES, ROMEO FLORES, LIGAYA
FONTANILLA, MELCHOR GASMEN, LEILA GASMENA, CONSUELO GAROLAGA, ALFONSO GOROSPE,
CESAR GOROSPE, RICARDO GOROSPE, JR., CARLITO GUZMAN, ERNESTO DE GUZMAN, THELMA DE
GUZMAN, FELIX HERNANDEZ, SOLIVEN HERNANDO, FRANCISCO HIDALGO, LEONILO INES, SIXTO
JAQUIES, TRINIDAD JAVIER, FERMIN LAGUA, GUALBERTO LAMBINO, ROMAN LANTING, OSCAR
LAZO, ROSARIO LAZO, JOSEFINA DE LARA, AMBROSIO LAZOL, NALIE LIBATIQUE, LAMBERTO
LLAMAS, ANTONIO LLANES, ROMULA LOPEZ, ADRIANO LORENZANA, ANTONIO MACARAEG,
ILDEFONSO MAGAT, CECILIO MAGHANOY, ALFONSO MAGSANOC, AVELINA MALLARE, AUGUSTO
MANALO, DOMINADOR MANASAN, BENITO MANECLANG, JR., TIRSO MANGUMAY, EVELLA
MANZANO, HONORANTE MARIANO, DOMINGO MEDINA, MARTIN MENDOZA, PERFECTO MILANA,
EMILIO MILLAN, GREGORIO MONEGAS, CONSOLACION NAVALTA, NOLI OCAMPO, VICENTE
CLEGARIO, ELPIDIO PALMONES, ARACELI PANGALANGAN, ISIDORO PANLASIGUI, JR., ARTEMIO
PARIS, JR., FEDERICO PAYUMO, JR., NELIA PAYUMO, BITUEN PAZ, FRANCISCO PENGSON, OSCAR
PERALTA, PROCORRO PERALTA, RAMON PERALTA, MINDA PICHAY, MAURO PIMENTEL, RUDENCIO
PIMENTEL, LEOPOLDO PUNO, REYNALDO RABE, ROLANDO REA, CONSTANTINO REA, CECILIA
RICO, CECILIO RILLORAZA, AURORA ROMAN, MERCEDES RUBIO, URSULA RUPISAN, OLIVIA
SABADO, BERNARDO SACRAMENTO, LUZ SALVADOR, JOSE SAMSON, JR., ROMULA DE LOS
SANTOS, ANTONIO SAYSON, JR., FLORANTE SERIL, MARIO SISON, RUDY SISON, PROCEDIO
TABIN, LUCENA TABISULA, HANNIBAL TAJANO, ENRIQUE TIANGCO, JR., JUSTINIANO TOBIAS,
NYMIA TOLENTINO, CONSTANTE TOLENTINO, TEODORO TORIBIO, FEDERICO TRINIDAD,
JOVENCINTO TRINIDAD, LAZARO VALDEZ, LUDRALINA VALDEZ, MAXIMINA VALDEZ, FRANCISCO
VELASCO, JR., ROSITA VELASCO, SEVERO VANTANILLA, VENANCIO VENTIGAN, FELICITAS
VENUS, NIEVES DE VERA, ELISEO VERSOZA, SILVESTRE VILA, GLORIA VILLAMOR, ALEJANDRO
VILLANUEVA, DAVID VILLANUEVA, CAROLINA VILLASEÑOR, ORLANDO VILLASTIQUE, MAJELLA
VILORIN, ROSARIO VILORIA, MAY VIRATA, FEDERICO VIRAY, MELBA YAMBAO, MARIO ZAMORA,
AUTENOR ABUEG, SOTERO ACEDO, HONRADO ALBERTO, FELIPE ALIDO, VICENTE ANCHUELO,
LIBERTAD APEROCHO, MARIANO BALBAGO, MARIO BALMACEDA, DAISY BICENIO, SYLVIA
BUSTAMANTE, RAYMUNDO GEMERINO, LAZARO CAPURAS, ROGELIO CARUNGCONG, ZACARIAS
CAYETANO, JR., LILY CHUA, ANDRES CRUZ, ARTURO CRUZ, BIENVENIDO ESTEBAN, PABLO
JARETA, MANUEL JOSE, NESTORIA KINTANAR, CLEOPATRIA LAZEM. MELCHOR LAZO, JESUS
LUNA, GASPAR MARINAS, CESAR MAULSON, MANUEL MEDINA, JESUS PLURAD, LAKAMBINI
 RAZON, GLORIA IBAÑEZ, JOSE SANTOS, ELEAZAR SQUI, JOSE TAMAYO, FELIPE TENORIO,
SILVINO UMALI, VICENTE ZARA, SATURNINO GARCIA, WILLIAM GARCIA, NORMA GARINGARAO,
ROSARIO ANTONIO, RUBEN BAUTISTA, QUIRINO PUESTO, NELIA M. GOMERI, OSCAR R. LANUZA,
AURORA M. LINDAYA, GREGORIO MOGSINO, JACINTO B. PAPA, GREGORIO R. RIEGO, TERESITA
N. ROZUL, MAGTANGOL SAMALA, PORFIRIO AGCOLIS, LEONARDO MONTE, HERMELINO PATI,
ALFREDO AYOYO, PURIFICACION ROJAS, ODANO TEAÑO, RICARDO SANTIAGO, and MARCELO
MANGAHAS, Respondents.

Gov’t. Corp. Counsel Leopoldo M. Abellera, Trial Attorneys Manuel M. Lazaro & Vicente
Constantino, Jr., for Petitioner.

Renato B. Kare & Simeon C. Sato for Private Respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Private respondent filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a petition to recover overtime pay for services
rendered in excess of eight hours a day. Said Court rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay private
respondents’ claim, minus what had already been paid. A motion for reconsideration having been denied,
petitioner filed this petition for certiorari on the ground that respondent court is without jurisdiction since the
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration exercises governmental functions and that it is not covered by the
Eight-Hour Labor Law.

The Court affirmed the decision ruling that performance of governmental function does not militate against
Court of Industrial Relation’s jurisdiction and that the Eight-Hour Labor Law applies to "all persons employed
in any industry or occupation whether public or private." cralaw vi rtua 1aw lib rary

Case referred to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings as provided by the New
Labor Code.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATE; REJECTION OF LAISSEZ FAIRE DOCTRINE. — As held in Edu v. Ericta, L-
32096, October 24, 1970: ". . ., to erase any doubts the Constitutional Convention saw to it that the
concept of laissez faire was rejected. It entrusted to our government the responsibility of coping with social
and economic problems with the commensurate power of control over economic affairs. Thereby it could live
up to its commitment to promote the general welfare through state action." cralaw virtua 1aw lib rary

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASONS. — Rejection of the laissez faire doctrine is one way by which through "the harsh
contrast which obtain between the levels of the rich and the poor" may be minimized. It is a response to the
trend noted by Justice Laurel in Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726, for the humanization of laws and
promotion of the interest of all component elements of society so that man’s innate aspirations, in what was
so felicitously termed by the First Lady as "a compassionate society," be attained.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION PERFORMS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
— From a cursory perusal of the purposes and objectives of RA No. 2265, creating the Philippine Virginia
Tobacco Administration, and RA No. 4155, amending the same, it is clear that the said body exercises
governmental and not propriety function.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATION’S JURISDICTION OVER LABOR DISPUTES. — In Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration v. Judge Honorato B. Masakayan, L-29538, November 29, 1972, where the point in dispute
was whether it was the Court of Industrial Relations or a court of first instance that is possessed of
competence in a declaratory relief for the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, one that could
readily be thought of as pertaining to the Judiciary, the answer was that "unless the law speaks clearly and
unequivocally, the choice should fall on the Court of Industrial Relations." Reference to a number of
decisions which recognized in the then respondent court the jurisdiction to determine labor controversies by
government owned or controlled corporations lend support to such an approach.

5. ID.; PROTECTION TO LABOR; EIGHT HOUR LABOR LAW; COVERS BODIES EXERCISING GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION. — Section 2 of the Eight Hour Labor Law leaves no doubt that "it shall apply to all persons
 employed in any industry or occupation, whether public or private . . ." Private respondents, therefore are
not included among the employees who are barred from enjoying the statutory benefits.

DECISION

FERNANDO, J.:

The principal issue that calls for resolution in this appeal by certiorari from an order of respondent Court of
Industrial Relations is one of constitutional significance. It is concerned with the expanded role of
government necessitated by the increased responsibility to provide for the general welfare. More specifically,
it deals with the question of whether petitioner, the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, discharges
governmental and not proprietary functions. The landmark opinion of the then Justice, now Chief Justice,
Makalintal in Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v. Confederation of Unions in
Government Corporations and offices, points the way to the right answer. 1 It interpreted the then
fundamental law as hostile to the view of a limited or negative state. It is antithetical to the laissez faire
concept. For as noted in an earlier decision, the welfare state concept "is not alien to the philosophy of [the
1935] Constitution." 2 It is much more so under the present Charter, which is impressed with an even more
explicit recognition of social and economic rights. 3 There is manifest, to recall Laski, "a definite increase in
the profundity of the social conscience," resulting in "a state which seeks to realize more fully the common
good of its members." 4 It does not necessarily follow, however, just because petitioner is engaged in
governmental rather than proprietary functions, that the labor controversy was beyond the jurisdiction of
the now defunct respondent Court. Nor is the objection raised that petitioner does not come within the
coverage of the Eight-Hour Labor Law persuasive. 5 We cannot then grant the reversal sought. We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. On December 20, 1966, claimants, now private respondents, filed with respondent
Court a petition wherein they alleged their employment relationship, the overtime services in excess of the
regular eight hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay them overtime compensation in
accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444. Their prayer was for the differential between the amount
actually paid to them and the amount allegedly due them. 6 There was an answer filed by petitioner
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration denying the allegations and raising the special defenses of lack of
a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. 7 The Issues were thereafter joined, and the case set for trial, with
both parties presenting their evidence. 8 After the parties submitted the case for decision, the then Presiding
Judge Arsenio T. Martinez of respondent Court issued an order sustaining the claims of private respondents
for overtime services from December 23, 1963 up to the date the decision was rendered on March 21, 1970,
and directing petitioner to pay the same, minus what it had already paid. 9 There was a motion for
reconsideration, but respondent Court en banc denied the same. 10 Hence this petition for certiorari.

Petitioner Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, as had been noted, would predicate its plea for the
reversal of the order complained of on the basic proposition that it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent
Court as it is exercising governmental functions and that it is exempt from the operation of Commonwealth
Act No. 444. 11 While, to repeat, its submission as to the governmental character of its operation is to be
given credence, it is not a necessary consequence that respondent Court is devoid of jurisdiction. Nor could
the challenged order be set aside on the additional argument that the Eight-Hour Labor Law is not applicable
to it. So it was, at the outset, made clear.

1. A reference to the enactments creating petitioner corporation suffices to demonstrate the merit of
petitioner’s plea that it performs governmental and not proprietary functions. As originally established by
Republic Act No. 2265, 12 its purposes and objectives were set forth thus:" (a) To promote the effective
merchandising of Virginia tobacco in the domestic and foreign markets so that those engaged in the industry
will be placed on a basis of economic security; (b) To establish and maintain balanced production and
consumption of Virginia tobacco and its manufactured products, and such marketing conditions as will insure
and stabilize the price of a level sufficient to cover the cost of production plus reasonable profit both in the
local as well as in the foreign market; (c) To create, establish, maintain, and operate processing,
warehousing and marketing facilities in suitable centers and supervise the selling and buying of Virginia
tobacco so that the farmers will enjoy reasonable prices that secure a fair return of their investments; (d) To
prescribe rules and regulations governing the grading, classifying, and inspecting of Virginia tobacco; and
(e) To improve the living and economic conditions of the people engaged in the tobacco industry." 13 The
amendatory statute, Republic Act No. 4155, 14 renders even more evident its nature as a governmental
agency. Its first section on the declaration of policy reads: "It is declared to be the national policy, with
respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry, to encourage the production of local Virginia tobacco of the
qualities needed and in quantities marketable in both domestic and foreign markets, to establish this
industry on an efficient and economic basis, and to create a climate conducive to local cigarette manufacture
of the qualities desired by the consuming public, blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to
improve the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes." 15 The objectives are set forth thus: "To attain this
national policy the following objectives are hereby adopted: 1. Financing; 2. Marketing; 3. The disposal of
stocks of the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) and the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration
(PVTA) at the best obtainable prices and conditions in order that a reinvigorated Virginia tobacco industry
may be established on a sound basis; and 4. Improving the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes
through blending of imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco; such importation with corresponding
exportation at a ratio of one kilo of imported to four kilos of exported Virginia tobacco, purchased by the
importer-exporter from the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration." 16

It is thus readily apparent from a cursory perusal of such statutory provisions why petitioner can rightfully
invoke the doctrine announced in the leading Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration
decision 17 and why the objection of private respondents with its overtones of the distinction between
constituent and ministrant functions of governments as set forth in Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation
18 if futile. The irrelevance of such a distinction considering the needs of the times was clearly pointed out
by the present Chief Justice, who took note, speaking of the reconstituted Agricultural Credit Administration,
that functions of that sort "may not be strictly what President Wilson described as ‘constituent’ (as
distinguished from ‘ministrant’), such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of
crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the
determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations.
Under this traditional classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of
sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people — these latter
functions being ministrant, the exercise of which is optional on the part of the government." 19 Nonetheless,
as he explained so persuasively: "The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this
traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas
which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter
optionally, and only ‘because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private
individual or group of individuals,’ continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within
activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social
challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater
socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a
national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social
justice." 20 Thus was laid to rest the doctrine in Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation, 21 based on the
Wilsonian classification of the tasks incumbent on government into constituent and ministrant in accordance
with the laissez faire principle. That concept, then dominant in economics, was carried into the
governmental sphere, as noted in a textbook on political science, 22 the first edition of which was published
in 1898, its author being the then Professor, later American President, Woodrow Wilson. He took pains to
emphasize that what was categorized by him as constituent functions had its basis in a recognition of what
was demanded by the "strictest [concept of] laissez faire, [as they] are indeed the very bonds of society."
23 The other functions he would minimize as ministrant or optional.

It is a matter of law that in the Philippines, the laissez faire principle hardly commanded the authoritative
position which at one time it held in the United States. As early as 1919, Justice Malcolm in Rubi v.
Provincial Board, 24 could affirm: "The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the
individual, as axioms of economic and political theory, are of the past. The modern period has shown a
widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of government activity." 25 The 1935 Constitution,
as was indicated earlier, continued that approach. As noted in Edu v. Ericta: 26 "What is more, to erase any
doubts, the Constitutional Convention saw to it that the concept of laissez-faire was rejected. It entrusted to
our government the responsibility of coping with social and economic problems with the commensurate
power of control over economic affairs. Thereby it could live up to its commitment to promote the general
welfare through state action." 27 Nor did the opinion in Edu stop there: "To repeat, our Constitution which
took effect in 1935 erased whatever doubts there might be on that score. Its philosophy is a repudiation of
laissez-faire. One of the leading members of the Constitutional Convention, Manuel A. Roxas, later the first
President of the Republic, made it clear when he disposed of the objection of Delegate Jose Reyes of
Sorsogon, who noted the ‘vast extensions in the sphere of governmental functions’ and the ‘almost
unlimited power to interfere in the affairs of industry and agriculture as well as to compete with existing
business’ as ‘reflections of the fascination exerted by [the then] current tendencies’ in other jurisdictions. He
spoke thus: ‘My answer is that this constitution has a definite and well defined philosophy, not only political
but social and economic. . . . If in this Constitution the gentlemen will find declarations of economic policy
they are there because they are necessary to safeguard the interest and welfare of the Filipino people
because we believe that the days have come when in self-defense, a nation may provide in its constitution
those safeguards, the patrimony, the freedom to grow, the freedom to develop national aspirations and
national interests, not to be hampered by the artificial boundaries which a constitutional provision
automatically imposes." 28

It would be then to reject what was so emphatically stressed in the Agricultural Credit Administration
decision about which the observation was earlier made that it reflected the philosophy of the 1935
Constitution and is even more in consonance with the expanded role of government accorded recognition in
the present Charter if the plea of petitioner that it discharges governmental function were not heeded. That
path this Court is not prepared to take. That would be to go backward, to retreat rather than to advance.
Nothing can thus be clearer than that there is no constitutional obstacle to a government pursuing lines of
endeavor, formerly reserved for private enterprise. This is one way, in the language of Laski, by which
through such activities, "the harsh contract which [does] obtain between the levels of the rich and the poor"
may be minimized. 29 It is a response to a trend noted by Justice Laurel in Calalang v. Williams 30 for the
humanization of laws and the promotion of the interest of all component elements of society so that man’s
innate aspirations, in what was so felicitously termed by the First Lady as "a compassionate society" be
attained. 31

2. The success that attended the efforts of petitioner to be adjudged as performing governmental rather
than proprietary functions cannot militate against respondent Court assuming jurisdiction over this labor
dispute. So it was mentioned earlier. As far back as Tabora v. Montelibano, 32 this Court, speaking through
Justice Padilla, declared: "The NARIC was established by the Government to protect the people against
excessive or unreasonable rise in the price of cereals by unscrupulous dealers. With that main objective
there is no reason why its function should not be deemed governmental. The Government owes its very
existence to that aim and purpose — to protect the people." 33 In a subsequent case, Naric Worker’s Union
v. Hon. Alvendia, 34 decided four years later, this Court, relying on Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions v. Tan, 35 which specified the cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations, included among which is one that involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law,
ruled that it is precisely respondent Court and not ordinary courts that should pass upon that particular labor
controversy. For Justice J. B. L. Reyes, the ponente, the fact that there were judicial as well as
administrative and executive pronouncements to the effect that the Naric was performing governmental
functions did not suffice to confer competence on the then respondent Judge to issue a preliminary
injunction and to entertain a complaint for damages, which as pointed out by the labor union, was
connected with an unfair labor practice. This is emphasized by the dispositive portion of the decision:
"Wherefore, the restraining orders complained of, dated May 19, 1958 and May 27, 1958, are set aside, and
the complaint is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the National Rice and Corn Corporation’s seeking
whatever remedy it is entitled to in the Court of Industrial Relations." 36 Then, too, in a case involving
petitioner itself, Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, 37 where the point in dispute was whether it was
respondent Court or a court of first instance that is possessed of competence in a declaratory relief petition
for the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, one that could readily be thought of as pertaining
to the judiciary, the answer was that "unless the law speaks clearly and unequivocally, the choice should fall
on the Court of Industrial Relations." 38 Reference to a number of decisions which recognized in the then
respondent Court the jurisdiction to determine labor controversies by government-owned or controlled
corporations lends to support to such an approach. 39 Nor could it be explained only on the assumption that
proprietary rather than governmental functions did call for such a conclusion. It is to be admitted that such
a view was not previously bereft of plausibility. With the aforecited Agricultural Credit and Cooperative
Financing Administration decision rendering obsolete the Bacani doctrine, it has, to use a Wilsonian phrase,
now lapsed into "innocuous desuetude." 40 Respondent Court clearly was vested with jurisdiction.

3. The contention of petitioner that the Eight-Hour Labor Law 41 does not apply to it hardly deserves any
extended consideration. There is an air of casualness in the way such an argument was advanced in its
petition for review as well as in its brief. In both pleadings, it devoted less than a full page to its discussion.
There is much to be said for brevity, but not in this case. Such a terse and summary treatment appears to
be a reflection more of the inherent weakness of the plea rather than the possession of an advocate’s
enviable talent for concision. It did cite Section 2 of the Act, but its very language leaves no doubt that "it
shall apply to all persons employed in any industry or occupation, whether public or private . . ." 42 Nor are
private respondents included among the employees who are thereby barred from enjoying the statutory
benefits. It cited Marcelo v. Philippine National Red Cross 43 and Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Araos. 44
Certainly, the activities to which the two above public corporations devote themselves can easily be
distinguished from that engaged in by petitioner. A reference to the pertinent sections of both Republic Acts
2265 and 2155 on which it relies to obtain a ruling as to its governmental character should render clear the
differentiation that exists. If as a result of the appealed order, financial burden would have to be borne by
petitioner, it has only itself to blame. It need not have required private respondents to render overtime
service. It can hardly be surmised that one of its chief problems is paucity of personnel. That would indeed
be a cause for astonishment. It would appear, therefore, that such an objection based on this ground
certainly cannot suffice for a reversal. To repeat, respondent Court must be sustained.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Order of March 21, 1970 and the Resolution of respondent Court en banc of May
8, 1970 denying a motion for reconsideration are hereby affirmed. The last sentence of the Order of March
21, 1970 reads as follows: "To find how much each of them [private respondents] is entitled under this
judgment, the Chief of the Examining Division, or any of his authorized representative, is hereby directed to
make a reexamination of records, papers and documents in the possession of respondent PVTA pertinent
and proper under the premises and to submit his report of his findings to the Court for further disposition
thereof." Accordingly, as provided by the New Labor Code, this case is referred to the National Labor
Relations Commission for further proceedings conformably to law. No costs.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Barredo, Antonio, Esguerra, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur.

Muñoz Palma and Makasiar, JJ., took no part.

Teehankee J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:

1. L-21484, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 649.

2. Alalayan v. National Power Corporation, L-24396, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 172, 182.

3. It suffices to note the more detailed provisions on social justice and protection to labor in Article II of the
Constitution and the categorical requirement in Section 12 of Article XIV that the State "formulate and
implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil and
achieving the goals enunciated in this Constitution." cralaw virtua 1aw lib rary

4. Cf. Laski, The State in Theory and Practice 269 (1935).

5. Com. Act No. 444 (1939).

6. Cf. Petition, par. V.

7. Cf. Ibid, par. VI.

8. Cf. Ibid, par. VIII.

9. Cf. Ibid, par. IX.

10. Cf. Ibid, pars X-XII.

11. Commonwealth Act No. 444 as amended by the Eight-Hour Labor Law. It was approved on June 20,
1959.

12. It was approved and took effect on June 19, 1959.

13. Commonwealth Act No. 2265, Section 2.

14. It was approved and took effect on June 20, 1964.

15. Republic Act No. 4155, Section 1.

16. Ibid, Section 2.

17. L-21484, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 649.

18. 100 Phil. 468 (1956).

19. 30 SCRA 649, 661-662.

20. Ibid, 662.

21. 100 Phil. 468 (1956).

22. The State (1898).

23. Ibid, 42.

24. 39 Phil. 660.

25. Ibid, 717-718.

26. L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481.

27. Ibid, 491.

28. Ibid, 491-492.

29. Laski, op. cit., 75.

30. 70 Phil. 726 (1940).

31. Cf. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association, L-24626, June 28, 1974, 57
SCRA 489 and Almira v. B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc., L-34974, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 120.

32. 98 Phil. 800 (1956).

33. Ibid, 806.

34. 107 Phil. 404 (1960).

35. 99 Phil. 854 (1956).

36. Ibid, 411.

37. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Judge Honorato B. Masakayan, L-29538, November 29,
1972, 48 SCRA 187.

38. Ibid, 191.

39. Cf. Price Stabilization Corp. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-14613, Nov. 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 745;
National Development Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-15422, Nov. 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 763; Manila
Railroad Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-18389, Jan. 31, 1963, 7 SCRA 174; Insular Sugar Refining
Corp. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-19247, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 270; National Shipyards and Steel
Corp. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-17874, Aug. 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 781; Manila Railroad Co. v. Court of
Industrial Relations, L-17871, Jan. 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 120; National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v.
NWSA Consolidated Unions, L-18938, Aug. 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 766; National Shipyards and Steel
Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-20838, July 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 755; Government Service
Insurance System v. Olase, L-19988, Jan. 5, 1967, 19 SCRA 1; National Shipyards and Steel Corporation v.
Court of Industrial Relations, L-21675, May 23, 1967, 20 SCRA 134; National Waterworks and Sewerage
Authority v. NWSA Consolidated Union, L-26894, Feb. 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 227; Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Financing Administration v. Confederation of Unions, L-21484, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 649;
National Power Corporation v. National Power Corporation Employees and Workers Association L-26169,
June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 806; Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association v. Court of Industrial
Relations, L-34688, Aug. 30, 1972, 46 SCRA 754; National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. NWSA
Consolidated Union, L-32019, Oct. 26, 1973, 53 SCRA 432.
40. There are overtones of the Bacani doctrine in SSS Employees Association v. Soriano, L-18081,
November 18, 1963, 9 SCRA 511 and GSIS v. GSIS Employees Association, L-17185, February 28, 1964, 10
SCRA 269. It should be obvious that to the extent that they relied on the distinction between constituent
and ministrant functions, they are now, in the language of Frankfurter, "derelicts in the sea of constitutional
law."cralaw virt ua1aw lib rary

41. Commonwealth Act No. 444.

42. The relevant portion of Section 2 of Com. Act No. 444 reads as follows: "This Act shall apply to all
persons employed in any industry or occupation, whether public or private, with the exception of farm
laborers, laborers who prefer to be paid on piece work basis, managerial employees, outside sales
personnel, domestic servants, persons in the personal service of another and members of the family of the
employer working for him." cralaw vi rt ua1aw lib rary

43. 101 Phil. 545 (1957).

44. 102 Phil. 1080 (1958).