Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    In The People and All Government Authority Emanates From Them

    Uploaded by

    Mera Arpilleda
    1. The case involved a dispute over overtime pay between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and some of its employees. 2. The PVTA denied the employees' claims for overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the PVTA discharges governmental rather than proprietary functions based on its purpose under relevant laws to promote the tobacco industry, establish balanced production and consumption, and improve living standards. Therefore, it is not subject to Commonwealth Act No. 444.

    Copyright:

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

    In The People and All Government Authority Emanates From Them

    Uploaded by

    Mera Arpilleda
    178 views2 pages
    1. The case involved a dispute over overtime pay between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and some of its employees. 2. The PVTA denied the employees' claims for overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the PVTA discharges governmental rather than proprietary functions based on its purpose under relevant laws to promote the tobacco industry, establish balanced production and consumption, and improve living standards. Therefore, it is not subject to Commonwealth Act No. 444.

    Original Title

    PVTA v CIR

    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. The case involved a dispute over overtime pay between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and some of its employees. 2. The PVTA denied the employees' claims for overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the PVTA discharges governmental rather than proprietary functions based on its purpose under relevant laws to promote the tobacco industry, establish balanced production and consumption, and improve living standards. Therefore, it is not subject to Commonwealth Act No. 444.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views2 pages

    In The People and All Government Authority Emanates From Them

    Uploaded by

    Mera Arpilleda
    1. The case involved a dispute over overtime pay between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and some of its employees. 2. The PVTA denied the employees' claims for overtime compensation under Commonwealth Act No. 444. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the PVTA discharges governmental rather than proprietary functions based on its purpose under relevant laws to promote the tobacco industry, establish balanced production and consumption, and improve living standards. Therefore, it is not subject to Commonwealth Act No. 444.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ARTICLE II - DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLE AND STATE POLICIES

    Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides


    in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

    Case: PVTA vs CIR


    G. R. No. L-32052, July 25, 1975

    Facts:

    Private respondents alleged their employment relationship, the overtime services in


    excess of the regular eight hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay the
    overtime compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act. No. 444. Philippine
    Virginia Tobacco Administration denied the allegations and raising the special
    defenses of lack of a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The respondent Court
    issued an order sustaining the claims of private respondents for overtime services
    and directing petitioner to pay the same, minus what is had already paid. There was
    a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the respondent Court. Petitioner
    PVTA contends that is is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent Court as it is
    exercising governmental functions and that it is exempt from the operation of
    Commonwealth Act No. 444.

    Issue: W/N petitioner discharges governmental and not proprietary functions

    Ruling:
    Yes, Yes, the Petitioner discharges governmental and not proprietary functions. The
    Supreme Court ruled that a reference to the enactments creating Petitioner
    Corporation suffices to demonstrate the merit of petitioner’s plea that it performs
    governmental and not proprietary functions. Under Republic Act No. 2265, its
    purposes and objectives are: "(a) To promote the effective merchandising of Virginia
    tobacco in the domestic and foreign markets so that those engaged in the industry
    will be placed on a basis of economic security; (b) To establish and maintain
    balanced production and consumption of Virginia tobacco and its manufactured
    products, and such marketing conditions as will insure and stabilize the price of a
    level sufficient to cover the cost of production plus reasonable profit both in the
    local as well as in the foreign market; (c) To create, establish, maintain, and operate
    processing, warehousing and marketing facilities in suitable centers and supervise
    the selling and buying of Virginia tobacco so that the farmers will enjoy reasonable
    prices that secure a fair return of their investments; (d) To prescribe rules and
    regulations governing the grading, classifying, and inspecting of Virginia tobacco; and
    (e) To improve the living and economic conditions of the people engaged in the
    tobacco industry." Republic Act No. 4155, renders even more evident its nature as a
    governmental agency. Its first section on the declaration of policy reads: "It is
    declared to be the national policy, with respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry,
    to encourage the production of local Virginia tobacco of the qualities needed and in
    quantities marketable in both domestic and foreign markets, to establish this
    industry on an efficient and economic basis, and, to create a climate conducive to
    local cigarette manufacture of the qualities desired by the consuming public,
    blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to improve the quality of locally
    manufactured cigarettes." It is thus readily apparent from a cursory perusal of such
    statutory provisions why petitioner can rightfully invoke the doctrine announced in
    the leading Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration decision
    and why the objection of private respondents with its overtones of the distinction
    between constituent and ministrant functions of governments. Under this traditional
    classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of
    sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the
    people - these latter functions being ministrant, the exercise of which is optional on
    the part of the government.

    You might also like