GR L 21013; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21013 August 17, 1967
UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. RICE AND CORN BOARD, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Universal Corn Products, Inc., a wholly Filipino-owned corporation engaged in the rice and corn industry, filed an amended petition for declaratory relief. It sought a judicial declaration that the construction placed by respondent Rice and Corn Board on its Resolution No. 10, in connection with Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act No. 108 , was illegal. The resolution provided that no person who is not a citizen of the Philippines shall be employed in any capacity in any Filipino-owned establishment engaged in the rice and/or corn industry, except technical personnel authorized by the President. Petitioners contended that applying this resolution to require the dismissal of its alien employees (who held positions such as executive vice-president, comptroller, and sales manager, and had been employed long before the enactment of Republic Act No. 3018 and the promulgation of the resolution) would give it a retroactive and unconstitutional effect, depriving them of their livelihood without due process and equal protection of the law. The lower court dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Whether the interpretation and application of Resolution No. 10 and Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act No. 108 by the Rice and Corn Board, requiring the dismissal of alien employees in the rice and corn industry, are retroactive and unconstitutional.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, ruling that the application was neither retroactive nor unconstitutional. On retroactivity, the Court held that statutes operate prospectively unless legislative intent for retroactivity is clear. Republic Act No. 3018 , which authorized the resolution, took effect on January 1, 1961, and the rules issued thereunder took effect after publication. The law penalizes the act of employing aliens after its effectivity, not the act of employing them before. Thus, requiring dismissal of aliens employed prior to the law’s effectivity but continuing thereafter is not a retroactive application. On constitutionality, the Court cited King v. Hernaez, stating that nationalization of employment in the rice and corn industry, as a police power measure, is constitutional. Its aim is to promote the material progress and welfare of citizens and does not violate due process or equal protection. The judgment was affirmed with costs against petitioners.