Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Effectivity Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jhenjhen Ganda
    1) In 1950, Petronilo Del Rosario sold his taxi business and 25 cabs to another transportation company without providing one month's notice to his 49 drivers and 3 mechanics. 2) The drivers sued Del Rosario seeking overtime pay for work beyond 8 hours and on weekends/holidays as well as one month's salary as required by Article 302 of the Code of Commerce for lack of notice. The mechanics later withdrew their claims. 3) The Supreme Court ruled against the drivers, finding that Article 302 had been repealed as of the sale date by the new Civil Code. Additionally, the drivers did not have fixed salaries that could be used to calculate the one month's pay required by Article 302.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Effectivity Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jhenjhen Ganda
    42 views1 page
    1) In 1950, Petronilo Del Rosario sold his taxi business and 25 cabs to another transportation company without providing one month's notice to his 49 drivers and 3 mechanics. 2) The drivers sued Del Rosario seeking overtime pay for work beyond 8 hours and on weekends/holidays as well as one month's salary as required by Article 302 of the Code of Commerce for lack of notice. The mechanics later withdrew their claims. 3) The Supreme Court ruled against the drivers, finding that Article 302 had been repealed as of the sale date by the new Civil Code. Additionally, the drivers did not have fixed salaries that could be used to calculate the one month's pay required by Article 302.

    Original Description:

    8

    Original Title

    8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1950, Petronilo Del Rosario sold his taxi business and 25 cabs to another transportation company without providing one month's notice to his 49 drivers and 3 mechanics. 2) The drivers sued Del Rosario seeking overtime pay for work beyond 8 hours and on weekends/holidays as well as one month's salary as required by Article 302 of the Code of Commerce for lack of notice. The mechanics later withdrew their claims. 3) The Supreme Court ruled against the drivers, finding that Article 302 had been repealed as of the sale date by the new Civil Code. Additionally, the drivers did not have fixed salaries that could be used to calculate the one month's pay required by Article 302.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    Effectivity Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jhenjhen Ganda
    1) In 1950, Petronilo Del Rosario sold his taxi business and 25 cabs to another transportation company without providing one month's notice to his 49 drivers and 3 mechanics. 2) The drivers sued Del Rosario seeking overtime pay for work beyond 8 hours and on weekends/holidays as well as one month's salary as required by Article 302 of the Code of Commerce for lack of notice. The mechanics later withdrew their claims. 3) The Supreme Court ruled against the drivers, finding that Article 302 had been repealed as of the sale date by the new Civil Code. Additionally, the drivers did not have fixed salaries that could be used to calculate the one month's pay required by Article 302.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    EFFECTIVITY

    G.R. No. L-6339

    LARA vs. DEL ROSARIO

    April 20, 1954

    Facts:
    In 1950 defendant Petronilo Del Rosario, Jr., owner of twenty-five taxi cabs or
    cars, operated a taxi business under the name of Waval Taxi. He employed among
    others three mechanics and 49 chauffeurs or drivers, the latter having worked for
    periods ranging from 2 to 37 months. On September 4, 1950, without giving said
    mechanics and chauffeurs 30 days advance notice, Del Rosario sold his 25 units or cabs
    to La Mallorca, a transportation company, as a result of which, according to the
    mechanics and chauffeurs above-mentioned they lost their jobs because the La Mallorca
    failed to continue them in their employment. They brought this action against Del
    Rosario to recover compensation for overtime work rendered beyond eight hours and on
    Sundays and legal holidays, and one month salary (mesada) provided for in article 302
    of the Code of Commerce because the failure of their former employer to give them one
    month notices. Subsequently, the three mechanics unconditionally withdrew their
    claims. So only the 49 drivers remained as plaintiffs.
    Issue:

    Whether or not the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants for overtime compensation


    under the Eight-Hour Labor Law is valid.
    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court held that the month pay (mesada) under article 302 of the
    Code of Commerce, article 2270 of the new Civil Code (Republic Act 386) appears to
    have repealed said Article 302 when it repealed the provisions of the Code of Commerce
    governing Agency. This repeal took place on August 30, 1950, when the new Civil Code
    went into effect, that is, one year after its publication in the Official Gazette. The alleged
    termination of services of the plaintiffs by the defendant took place according to the
    complaint on September 4, 1950, that is to say, after the repeal of Article 302 which
    they invoke. Moreover, said Article 302 of the Code of Commerce, assuming that it were
    still in force speaks of salary corresponding to said month. commonly known as
    mesada. If the plaintiffs herein had no fixed salary either by the day, week, or month,
    then computation of the months salary payable would be impossible. Article 302 refers
    to employees receiving a fixed salary.

    You might also like