GR L 8975; (June, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8975. June 29, 1957.
PEDRO P. TAMAYO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Two hundred sixty-five (265) employees of the Manila Hotel Company were dismissed and paid the value of their accumulated leave under Section 286 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 611 , when the hotel was leased to a private concern on June 30, 1954. The plaintiffs brought an action to recover an additional amount for accrued leave, claiming they were entitled to ten months’ accrued leave under the same Section 286, as later amended by Republic Act No. 1081 , which was approved on June 15, 1954—fifteen days before their separation. Republic Act No. 1081 increased the maximum accumulable vacation and sick leave from five months to ten months. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Republic Act No. 1081 did not have retroactive effect. The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether Republic Act No. 1081 , which increased the maximum accumulable leave from five to ten months, applies retroactively to employees whose length of service prior to its approval would have entitled them to an accumulated leave in excess of five months.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. Republic Act No. 1081 does not have retroactive effect. Article 4 of the New Civil Code provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided, and Republic Act No. 1081 contains no such provision. The Department of Justice, through Secretary Pedro Tuason, opined that the Act did not apply retroactively, as any leave earned in excess of the five-month maximum prior to the amendment was forfeited and could not be restored without a clear legislative declaration. The contemporaneous construction by the executive branch (the Commissioner of Civil Service) that the accumulation of the additional five months should begin only from June 15, 1954, is entitled to respect. Furthermore, Congress itself, by considering and later vetoing a bill (House Bill No. 3097) intended to give the Act retroactive effect, acknowledged that the Act had only prospective effect. The Court distinguished the cited case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. CIR, as its ruling was based on a company circular and policy, not on the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 611 . Article 1702 of the New Civil Code, which calls for construing labor legislation in favor of the laborer in case of doubt, is inapplicable as no doubt exists in this case.