Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Consti2Digest - People Vs Pomar, 46 Phil 126, G.R. No. L-22008 (3 Nov. 1924)

1) Macaria Fajardo, an employee at a tobacco factory, was denied paid vacation leave during her pregnancy as required by Act No. 3071. She filed a criminal complaint against the factory manager. 2) The trial court found the manager guilty but he appealed, arguing the act was unconstitutional. 3) The Supreme Court declared the section of the act requiring paid pregnancy leave unconstitutional as it violated people's right to freely enter contracts. The police power of the state cannot violate constitutional rights like due process.

Uploaded by

Lu Cas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Consti2Digest - People Vs Pomar, 46 Phil 126, G.R. No. L-22008 (3 Nov. 1924)

1) Macaria Fajardo, an employee at a tobacco factory, was denied paid vacation leave during her pregnancy as required by Act No. 3071. She filed a criminal complaint against the factory manager. 2) The trial court found the manager guilty but he appealed, arguing the act was unconstitutional. 3) The Supreme Court declared the section of the act requiring paid pregnancy leave unconstitutional as it violated people's right to freely enter contracts. The police power of the state cannot violate constitutional rights like due process.

Uploaded by

Lu Cas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Consti2Digest - People Vs Pomar, 46 Phil 126, G.R. No. L-22008 (3 Nov.

1924)

Facts:
Macaria Fajardo was an employee of La Flor de la Isabela, a Tobacco factory. She was granted a vacation
leave, by reason of her pregnancy, which commenced on the 16th of July 1923. According to Fajardo,
during that time, she was not given the salary due her in violation of the provisions of Act No. 3071.
Fajardo filed a criminal complaint based on Section 13 and 15 of said Act against the manager of the
tobacco Factory, Julio Pomar, herein defendant. The latter, on the other hand, claims that the facts in the
complaint did not constitute an offense and further alleges that the aforementioned provisions of Act No.
3071 was unconstitutional. Section 13, Act No. 3071 provides that, “Every person, firm or corporation
owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description shall be obliged to grant to any
woman employed by it as laborer who may be pregnant, thirty days vacation with pay before and another
thirty days after confinement: Provided, That the employer shall not discharge such laborer without just
cause, under the penalty of being required to pay to her wages equivalent to the total of two months
counting from the day of her discharge.” Section 15 of the same Act provides for the penalty of any
violation of section 13. The latter was enacted by the legislature in the exercise of its supposed Police
Power with the purpose of safeguarding the health of pregnant women laborers in "factory, shop or place
of labor of any description," and of insuring to them, to a certain extent, reasonable support for one month
before and one month after their delivery. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff,
sentencing the defendant to pay the fine of fifty pesos and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment. Hence, the case was raised to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the former decision.

Issue:
1. Whether or not Section 13 of Act No. 3071 is unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not the promulgation of the questioned provision was a valid exercise of Police Power.

Held:
The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of Act No. 3071 to be unconstitutional for being violative or
restrictive of the right of the people to freely enter into contracts for their affairs. It has been decided
several times, that the right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual,
protected by the "due process of law" clause of the constitution. The contracting parties may establish
any agreements, terms, and conditions they may deem advisable, provided they are not contrary to law,
morals or public policy

The police power of the state is a very broad and expanding power. The police power may encompass
every law for the restraint and punishment of crimes, for the preservation of the public peace, health, and
morals. But that power cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate
the express inhibition of the constitution. The Police Power is subject to and is controlled by the
paramount authority of the constitution of the state, and will not be permitted to violate rights secured
or guaranteed by the latter.

You might also like