A bird cannot hunt without the claw while a lawyer cannot work without the law.

Lawyers cannot effectively represent their clients without knowing the applicable laws that can serve as their tools in setting controversies and solving legal disputes. Hence, in studying Labor Law, it is essential to know the applicable laws that will govern any labor disputes. It is also equally important to know the sources of these applicable laws which will serve as a guide in settling labor disputes.

The sources of labor laws include the following: (1) 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) Statute – PD 442 as amended by RA 6715; (3) Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code; (4) Supreme Court Decisions; and (5) Other Secondary Sources.

I. The 1987 Philippine Constitution

The highest law of the land provides for a provision which protects labor. Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, otherwise known as the Protection to Labor Clause provides that:

“Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.”

The rationale for this constitutional provision protecting labor is that employer stands in a higher footing than the employee because of the economic dependence of the latter from the former.

Moreover, the provision provides for the rights of the workers such as: (1) right to self-organization; (2) right to collective bargaining and negotiations; (3) right to engage in peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law; (4) right to security of tenure; (5) right to humane conditions of work; (6) right to a living wage; and the (7) right to participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

Although the Constitution affords protection to labor, it does not mean that labor should be always protected up to the extent that it will already be advantageous on the part of the employer. Hence, paragraph 4, Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution provides for the principle of non-oppression, such that abor and capital should not work oppressively against each other. With that, the provision speaks of balancing two rights – the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

II. Presidential Decree 442 or the Labor Code of the Philippines

One of the main sources of labor laws is Presidential Decree Number 442 or the Labor Code of the Philippines. This law was signed on May 4, 1974 and took effect on November 1, 1974 pursuant to Article 2 of PD 442. This law is an important piece of legislation since it lays down the terms and conditions of employment in the private sector, which was not yet in existence before the effectivity of PD 442.

III. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code

Another source of labor laws is the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. Article 5 of the Labor Code provides that:

Article 5. Rules and regulations. The Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general circulation.

Examples of these Rules and Regulations are the rules promulgated by Secretary of Labor and Employment in the exercise of their quasi-legislative power. Moreover, these rules and regulations have the force and effect of law. Nevertheless, these rules should not expand or strip the law which served as a basis for their promulgation. In other words, these rules are subordinate to the law. Hence, the Court can strike down an administrative rule which deviates from the provision of the Statute (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Obias)

Since these rules and regulations are subordinate to the law, the law will also prevail in case there is a conflict between the law and the rules. In addition, the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter in interpreting or constructing the provisions of these Rules and Regulations pursuant to its power to interpret the law.

Publication is also indispensable for the effectivity or enforceability of these Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code pursuant to the last sentence in Article 5 of the Labor Code and Article 2 of the Civil Code. Consequently, the Supreme Court in Tañada v. Tuvera provided that laws, presidential issuances, as well as administrative rules and regulations should be published first before they can be effective. Take note that publication is required for effectivity or enforceability, but not validity.

IV. Supreme Court Decisions

Article 8 of the Civil Code provides that “[j]udicial decisions applying and interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system.” It is also important to take note that the Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Imperial ruled that only the decisions of the Supreme Court establishes jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction. Consequently, only the decisions of the Supreme Court shall be the source of labor laws.

V. Other Secondary Sources

Aside from the above-mentioned primary sources of labor laws, there are also secondary sources which includes but not limited to the following: (1) decisions of foreign courts; (2) opinions of labor department or agencies; and (3) reviewers in labor laws/textbooks.

To: Councilor Job Hutt

From: Reba Joy B. Killongan

Date: May 15, 2020

Re: The case against you for alleged violation of Section 8 in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6712 penalizing the act of non-filing of SALN
—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr. Hutt,

Good day! We hope you have been well. Recently, you informed us that you have a pending case before the Office of the Ombudsman for non-filing of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN). Specifically, you asked for an advice on whether the case against you can be dismissed by filing a “motion to quash.” After careful review of the facts and issues of your case, we believe that the Court will not likely grant the motion to quash because you have already entered your plea during the arraignment at one of the Courts in Cebu City. We will explain this conclusion more comprehensively below. For your guidance, we will first restate the facts as we understand them to confirm their accuracy. Next, we will provide you with an explanation of the law as it applies in your case. Lastly, we will state our conclusion based on the discussion of the how the law applies to your case.

The facts of the case shows that you were first elected as Councilor of Municipality X in 2010. In 2013, a concerned citizen filed a complaint against you before the Office of Ombudsman for your failure to file your Statement of Assets Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) in the years 2011 and 2012. Acting on the complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas conducted a preliminary investigation. After three years, the preliminary investigation was terminated when the Ombudsman-Visayas graft prosecutor issued a resolution in 2016. The resolution charged you with violation of Section 8 in relation to Section 11 of RA 6713 for non-filing of SALN. Subsequently, your former counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration on the resolution issued by the Ombudsman-Visayas. In 2018, the Ombudsman Central Office denied your motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, you were already arraigned at one of the courts in Cebu City. At present, your case is now at the stage of presentation of the second witness for the prosecution.

In summary, we will first explain to you the ground will be the basis of our motion to quash, then answer whether such ground is present in your case, and finally examine whether you can still file a motion to quash although you have already been arraigned.

Firstly, a motion to quash is a remedy you can avail of if you want to challenge the complaint or information filed against you. Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for the quashal of the complaint or information, as follows: (a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; © the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) the complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) the complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

In your case, none of the grounds enumerated above are present. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court provides that you can still file a motion to quash on the ground of the violation of your right to speedy disposition of cases. Therefore, you can file a motion to quash based on the ground that your constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated.

Secondly, we will now explain how your constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated. To simplify the Case Laws, the right to speedy disposition of cases can only be violated if the following factors are present: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of his or her right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay. Moreover, the length and reason or the delay must be both unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive.

A careful analysis of your case led us to conclude that all of the factors presented above are satisfied. First, the Supreme Court ruled that a delay of three years in the preliminary investigation was unreasonable. In your case, the preliminary investigation, which commenced upon the filing of complaint against you in 2013 and terminated upon the passage of a Resolution in 2016, also lasted for three years. Thus, the length of the delay was unjustifiable. Second, the Supreme Court also provided that the reason for the delay was justifiable when the case was complex and the conduct of the parties’ lawyers contributed to the delay. In your case, the case is not complex since the Supreme Court held that a case involving the non-filing of SALN was not complex. Also, the conduct of the lawyers did not contribute to the delay considering that there was no squabble between the lawyers as the lawyers in the instant case never filed a lot of petitions nor set motions to contribute to the delay of the proceedings. Hence, the reason for the delay is unjustifiable. Third, the Supreme Court summarized that an accused who was unaware of the conduct of the preliminary investigation cannot assert the right to speedy disposition of cases and such non-assertion does not result to a waiver of such right. Here, the facts show that you were unaware of the ongoing preliminary investigation since the Office of the Ombudsman did not follow the proper procedure in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The facts revealed that you were never issued a subpoena which contained a copy of the complaint as well as supporting affidavits and documents. Moreover, you were not even directed to comment nor file a counter-affidavit to present your defense. Since you were unaware of the preliminary investigation, it logically follows that you cannot assert your right to speedy disposition of cases. Lastly, you were prejudiced by the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation for it has impaired your defense. Therefore, we conclude that your right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated.

Lastly, we will now resolve whether we can still file a motion to quash even if you had already been arraigned at one of the Courts in Cebu City. The Rules of Court provides that a motion to quash must be filed before the accused entered a plea. The same law states that an accused enters a plea during arraignment. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that an accused who asserts the right to speedy disposition of cases must file the appropriate motion within the “statutory or procedural periods.” From the relevant laws and case laws, a motion to quash on the ground of the right to speedy disposition of cases must be filed before arraignment. In this case, you were already arraigned at one of the courts in Cebu City. Hence, the remedy of filing a motion to quash on the grounds of the speedy disposition of cases will, unfortunately, not prosper.

To summarize, I believe that although a motion to quash on the ground of speedy disposition of cases may be filed, it can no longer prosper since you have already been arraigned at one of the Courts in Cebu City.

We hope this opinion is helpful. Moreover, we would be happy to discuss this matter with you further. If you have any questions or if there are any misstatements of fact in this letter, please do not hesitate to call our office at (032) 2556 183. Above all, it was a pleasure meeting you. Thank you!

Yours Sincerely,

Reba Joy B. Killongan
Associate, AAA Law Office

Art 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:

1. Immovable or real property; or
2. Movable or personal property.

Things

• Objects external to man
• Includes both material objects and rights:
  • Corporeal objects (can be perceived by the senses)
  • Incorporeal objects (objects which have only an intellectual or juridical existence)

Property, Defined

• Defined from the Latin word “proprius” (i.e. belonging to one or one’s own
• Traditional sense: property extends only to those things which are possessed and found in the possession of man.
• Civil Code: Property refers to things which are susceptible of appropriation.
  • It is not only confined to things which are already appropriated or possessed by man but also extends to those susceptible of such appropriation, although not yet appropriated.
• Things which cannot be subjected to human control or by reason of sheer physical impossibility cannot be considered a property.
  • Sun, stars, ocean etc.
  • Forces of nature (lightning or rain)

Requisites for a thing to be considered a property

1. Susceptibility of appropriation
   • While a things outside the commerce of men cannot be the object of a contract, it can be considered a property (i.e. properties of public dominion)
2. Utility
   • It can serve as a means to satisfy human needs
3. Substantivity or Individuality
• The thing must have an autonomous and separate existence, and not simply a part of a whole.
  • Diamond attached to the ring – one property
  • Diamond is separated from the ring – two separate property