Scribd
Upload
56 views2 pages

People vs. Julio Pomar GR No. L-22008, Nov.3,1924

The document discusses a 1924 Supreme Court case that ruled a law requiring employers to pay women workers before and after pregnancy as unconstitutional. The court found the law exceeded the state's police power and took no account of alternative employment terms.

Uploaded by

Jonathan Racelis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views2 pages

People vs. Julio Pomar GR No. L-22008, Nov.3,1924

The document discusses a 1924 Supreme Court case that ruled a law requiring employers to pay women workers before and after pregnancy as unconstitutional. The court found the law exceeded the state's police power and took no account of alternative employment terms.

Uploaded by

Jonathan Racelis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Atty.

Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law

People vs. Julio Pomar GR No. L-22008, Nov.3, 1924


Facts:
 Julio Pomar is the manager and person in charge of La Flor de la
Isabela, a tobacco factory pertaining to La Campania General de
Tabacos de Filipinas, a corporation duly authorized to transact
business in the City of Manila. under his employ is Macaria Fajardo,
whom he granted vacation leave by reason of her pregnancy.
However, Pomar did not pay her the wages she is entitled to
corresponding to 30 days before and 30 days after her delivery and
confinement. Despite demands made by her, Pomar still refused to
pay Fajardo.
 The CFI found Pomar guilty of violating section 13 in connection
with section 15 of Act No. 3071. POmar appealed questioning the
constitutionality of the Act.
 Said section 13 was enacted by the Legislature of the Philippine
Islands in the exercise of its supposed police power, with the
praiseworthy purpose of safeguarding the health of pregnant women
laborers in “factory, shop or place of labor of any description,” and of
insuring to them, to a certain extent, reasonable support for one
month before and one month after their delivery.
Issue:
Whether or not Act 3071 has been adopted in the reasonable and
lawful exercise of the police power of the state
Ruling:
 No. That’s why it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 The police power of the state is a growing and expanding power. As
civilization develops and public conscience becomes awakened, the
police power may be extended, as has been demonstrated in the
growth of public sentiment with reference to the manufacture and

Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”


Atty. Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law

sale of intoxicating liquors. But that power cannot grow faster than
the fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate the express
inhibition of the people’s law – the constitution. If the people desire
to have the police power extended and applied to conditions and
things prohibited by the organic law, they must first amend that law.
 It will also be noted from an examination of said section 13, that it
takes no account of contracts for the employment of women by the
day nor by the piece. The law is equally applicable to each case. It
will hardly be contended that the person, firm or corporation owning
or managing a factory, shop or place of labor, who employs women
by the day or by the piece, could be compelled under the law to pay
for sixty days during which no services were rendered.
 For all of the foregoing reasons, we are fully persuaded, under the
facts and the law, that the provisions of section 13, of Act No. 3071 of
the Philippine Legislature, are unconstitutional and void.
 Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked, the
complaint is hereby dismissed.

Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”

You might also like