GR L 14817; (September, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14817; September 30, 1960
ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Andres G. Sanchez and others were employees of respondent Northern Luzon Transportation Co. Inc. prior to October 16, 1950. On that date, they lost their jobs. The employer claimed the separation was pursuant to an advance notice given of probable discontinuance of work. The petitioners filed a claim for one-month separation pay in the La Union court of first instance and won. The employer appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petitioners’ claim. The Court of Appeals held that since the petitioners were employed without a definite period and were separated in October 1950, Article 302 of the Code of Commerce (which provided for one-month advance notice or pay in lieu thereof) had already been repealed by the Civil Code, which took effect on August 30, 1950. The appellate court also noted that on August 18, 1950, the employer had given the petitioners a memorandum stating that due to declining business, the company might be forced to lay them off indefinitely, and that this served as an advance notice.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners, who were employees without a definite period of employment and were separated in October 1950, are entitled to the one-month separation pay provided under Article 302 of the Code of Commerce.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the claim. The Court held that Article 302 of the Code of Commerce was expressly repealed by the New Civil Code (Article 2270), which took effect on August 30, 1950. Therefore, when the petitioners were separated in October 1950, Article 302 was no longer in force. While Republic Act No. 1052 , approved on June 12, 1954, reinstated the employee’s right to one-month notice or pay, this law could not be applied retroactively to affect separations that occurred before its enactment. The Court cited its precedent in Gutierrez vs. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., which held that employees without a fixed period of employment had no right to the mesada under Article 302 if dismissed after the Civil Code took effect and before the approval of Republic Act No. 1052 . The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the advance notice given by the employer, as the case was decided on the basis of the repeal of the applicable law.