Case Digest: Article 1 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

MANUEL LARA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.

PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO, JR., defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

FACTS: On September 4, 1950, Petronilo del Rosario, Jr., owner of Waval Taxi sold his 25 units or cabs to La Mallorca, a transportation company, without giving 30 days advance notice to Lara, et al., who worked for periods ranging from 2 to 37 months. The mentioned workers lost their jobs because La Mallorca failed to continue them in their employment.

Lara et al., sued Del Rosario to recover compensation for overtime work rendered beyond eight hours and on Sundays and legal holidays, and one month salary (mesada) because of the failure of their former employer to give them one month notice (Article 302 of the Code of Commerce).

However, Del Rosario contended that the Code of Commerce was already repealed hence Lara et al., have no legal basis. Del Rosario contends that the New Civil Code took effect in August 1950 or a year after release for publication.

ISSUE: When did the New Civil Code took effect?

HELD: Supreme Court ruled that Lara et al., has no legal basis for their claims since the provision of the Code of Commerce they are relying on was already repealed by the New Civil Code. Their alleged dismissal from service without notice took place in September 1950 after the New Civil Code took effect (August 30, 1950).

Moreover, if the plaintiffs herein had no fixed salary either by the day, week or the month, then computation of the month's salary (mesada) payable would be impossible. Article 302 of the Code of Commerce refers to employees receiving a fixed salary.