CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | PEOPLE VS. POLMAR 46 Phil 440 (1924)
PEOPLE VS. POLMAR
46 Phil 440 (1924)
FACTS
Defendant, the manager ad person in charge of La Flor dela Isabela, a cigarrete manufacturing company, was adjudged guilty by the Court of First Instance of refusing and failing to pay P80 to Macaria Fajardo, a pregnant employee, despite her repeated demands in violation of Sec 13 and 15 of Act No. 3071which provides for a 30 day vacation with pay before delivery and another 30 day vacation with pay after confinement of pregnant laborers in factories, shops and place of labor. In an appeal, respondent questioned the constitutionality of the Act arguing that it is in violation of the right to contract.
ISSUE
Whether or not Act 3071 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is in violation of the constitutional guarantee of right to contract.
RULING
YES, Act 3071 is unconstitutional.
The Right to enter into contract is included in the liberty of a person guaranteed by the constitution. It includes the right to contract for personal services or employment. The right to contract for labor is as essential to the capitalist as to the laborer. The right to and for labor includes the right to refuse or terminate. Legislature is not permitted to deprive citizen their right to enter into contract freely and without restraint.
In the case at bar, the court ruled that Act 3071 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is in violation of the constitutional guarantee of right to contract as it is unjustly oppressive to employers and unfairly favors the employee in violation of their right to enter into contract freely and without restraint.