Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 518 views

    Pvta V Cir Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    The petitioner PVTA argued it was exempt from paying overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444 because it performed governmental functions. The court rejected this argument, finding that PVTA could invoke the expanded role of government to provide for public welfare. While PVTA served governmental functions, the distinction between constituent and ministrant functions was obsolete. PVTA was still subject to labor laws regarding overtime pay.

    Copyright:

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

    Pvta V Cir Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    518 views1 page
    The petitioner PVTA argued it was exempt from paying overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444 because it performed governmental functions. The court rejected this argument, finding that PVTA could invoke the expanded role of government to provide for public welfare. While PVTA served governmental functions, the distinction between constituent and ministrant functions was obsolete. PVTA was still subject to labor laws regarding overtime pay.

    Original Description:

    PVTA v CIR Digest

    Original Title

    Pvta v Cir Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner PVTA argued it was exempt from paying overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444 because it performed governmental functions. The court rejected this argument, finding that PVTA could invoke the expanded role of government to provide for public welfare. While PVTA served governmental functions, the distinction between constituent and ministrant functions was obsolete. PVTA was still subject to labor laws regarding overtime pay.

    Copyright:

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

    Pvta V Cir Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    The petitioner PVTA argued it was exempt from paying overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444 because it performed governmental functions. The court rejected this argument, finding that PVTA could invoke the expanded role of government to provide for public welfare. While PVTA served governmental functions, the distinction between constituent and ministrant functions was obsolete. PVTA was still subject to labor laws regarding overtime pay.

    Copyright:

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

    The contention of petitioner that the Labor Code does not

    PVTA v CIR Digest apply to them deserve scant consideration.


    Facts: There is no question based on RA 4155, that petitioner is a
    This case involves the expanded role of the governmental agency. As such, the petitioner can rightfully
    government necessitated by the increased responsibility to invoke the doctrine announced in the leading ACCFA case.
    provide for the general welfare. The objection of private respondents with its overtones of the
    1. In 1966 private respondents filed a petition distinction between constituent and ministrant functions of
    seeking relief for their alleged overtime services and governments as set forth in Bacani v. Nacoco, is futile. It does
    the petitioner’s failure to pay for said compensation in not necessarily follow, that just because petitioner is engaged
    accordance with CA No. 444. in governmental rather than proprietary functions, that the
    labor controversy was beyond the jurisdiction of the now
    2. Petitioner denied the allegations for lack of
    defunct respondent Court. Nor is the objection raised that
    a cause of cause of action and lack of petitioner does not come within the coverage of the Eight-
    jurisdiction. Judge Martinez issued an order, directing Hour Labor Law persuasive.
    petitioner to pay. Hence, this petition for certiorari on
    grounds that the corporation is exercising
    A reference to the pertinent sections of both Republic Acts
    governmental functions and is therefore exempt from
    2265 and 2155 renders clear the differentiation that exists. If
    Commonwealth Act No. 444. as a result of the appealed order, financial burden would have
    3. PVTA contended it is beyond the jurisdiction of to be borne by petitioner, it has only itself to blame. It need
    respondent Court as it is exercising governmental not have required private respondents to render overtime
    functions and that it is exempt from the operation of service. It can hardly be surmised that one of its chief
    Commonwealth Act No. 444. problems is paucity of personnel. That would indeed be a
    cause for astonishment. It would appear, therefore, that such
    Issue: Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental an objection based on this ground certainly
    and not proprietary functions.

    YES. But the distinction between the constituent and


    ministrant functions of the government has become obsolete.
    The government has to provide for the welfare of its people.
    RA No. 2265 providing
    for a distinction between constituent and the
    ministrant functions is irrelevant considering the needs of the
    present time: “The growing complexities of modern society
    have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of
    government obsolete.”

    You might also like