G.R. No. L-26406 October 31, 1969
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, petitioner-appellant, vs. JOSE B. LINGAD, Secretary of Labor and RUBEN F. SANTOS, Director, Bureau of Labor Standards, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Incorporated, a corporation that began operations after the enactment of Republic Act No. 602 (the Minimum Wage Law), paid its employees on both daily and monthly bases. Following the effectivity of Republic Act No. 4180, which amended the Minimum Wage Law by raising the minimum wage to six pesos (P6.00) a day, the respondents Secretary of Labor and Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards issued an interpretative bulletin requiring monthly paid employees to receive a minimum of P180.00 per month (based on a 30-day month computation). The petitioner increased its monthly paid employees’ salaries only to a minimum of P152.00 per month, computed at the rate of six days a week (Monday to Saturday) at the P6.00 daily minimum wage. The petitioner filed an action for declaratory relief, arguing that Section 19 of the original Minimum Wage Law, which prohibits employers from reducing wages or supplements already being paid, applies only to employers in business at the time of that law’s enactment and not prospectively to employers like itself that began business afterward. The lower court rejected this contention.

ISSUE

Whether Section 19 of Republic Act No. 602 (the Minimum Wage Law), which prohibits an employer from reducing wages paid in excess of the minimum wage or reducing supplements furnished on the date of enactment, applies to an employer like the petitioner who began business after the original Minimum Wage Law took effect, in connection with the enforcement of the increased minimum wage under Republic Act No. 4180.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Section 19 of Republic Act No. 602 was not repealed by Republic Act No. 4180 as it was not inconsistent with the amendatory act and was deemed impliedly reenacted. The Court rejected the petitioner’s literal and restrictive interpretation that Section 19’s use of the word “now” and the phrase “furnished on the date of enactment” limited its application only to employers existing when the original law was passed. Such an interpretation would defeat the clear legislative purpose of the Minimum Wage Law and its amendatory act, which is to protect labor and ensure a decent living for the laborer, in accordance with the constitutional principle of social justice and mandate of protection to labor. The Court held that statutes must be construed to avoid absurd or unreasonable results and to give effect to their purpose. Therefore, the petitioner was required to pay its monthly paid employees a minimum of P180.00 per month, considering unworked Sundays and legal holidays as paid days, in compliance with the increased minimum wage law and the prohibition against reducing supplements.