i.

Student Name:
Michelle C. Llaneta-Villamora

ii. Complete Case Title Citation:

Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v Trajano, G.R. No. 133215, July 15, 1999.

iii. Statement of the Issue:

Whether or not the Department Order No.9 series of 1997 is an invalid exercise of
the rule-making power of the Secretary of Labor.

iv. Complainant’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that Department Order No.9 is illegal because it contravenes
previous rulings of the Supreme Court, violative of public policy, contrary to law and
the Constitution and an invalid exercise of the rule-making power of the Secretary of
Labor.

v. Respondent’s Argument:
The respondent contends that Department Order No. 9 is not an invalid exercise of
the rule making power of the Secretary of Labor because for an administrative order to
be valid, it must (i) be issued on the authority of law and (ii) it must not be contrary to
the law and Constitution. Department Order No. 9 has been issued on authority of law.
Under the law, the Secretary is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the Labor Code. Specifically, Article 5 of the Labor Code provides that the
Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration
and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary
implementing rules and regulations. Consonant with this article, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment promulgated the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. By
virtue of this self-same authority, the Secretary amended the above-mentioned omnibus
rules by issuing Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997.

vi. Instruction Learned:

Article 8 of the Civil Code states that “judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. This
does not mean however, that courts can create law. The courts exist for interpreting the
law, not for enacting it. To allow otherwise would be violative of the principle of
separation of powers, inasmuch as the sole function of our courts is to apply or interpret
the laws, particularly where gaps of lacunae exist or where ambiguities be cloud issues,
but it will not arrogate unto itself the task of legislating.
Previous rulings of the Supreme Court on disputes on registration of unions are not
to be deemed as laws on the registration of unions. They merely interpret and apply the
implementing rules of the Labor Code as to registration of unions. It is the interpretation
that forms part of the legal system of the Philippines, for the interpretation placed upon
the written law by a competent court has the force of law.
 Decision of the Court:
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the Resolution of the Secretary of
Labor was affirmed.

vii. Ratio:
The sole function of our Courts is to apply or interpret the laws. It does not
formulate public policy, which is the province of the legislative and executive branches
of government. It cannot, thus, be said that the principles laid down by the court
in Progressive and Protection Technology constitute public policy on the matter. They
do, however, constitute the Courts interpretation of public policy, as formulated by the
executive department through its promulgation of rules implementing the Labor Code.
However, the executive department, through the amendments introduced in Book V of
the Omnibus Rules by Department Order No. 9, has itself changed this public policy.
It is not for us to question this change in policy, it being a well-established principle
beyond question that it is not within the province of the courts to pass judgment upon
the policy of legislative or executive action.9 Notwithstanding the expanded judicial
power under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, an inquiry on the above-stated
policy would delve into matters of wisdom not within the powers of this Court.
Furthermore, Article 274 of the Labor Code empowers the Secretary of Labor or
his duly authorized representative to inquire into the financial activities of legitimate
labor organizations upon the filing of a complaint under oath duly supported by the
written consent of 20% of the total membership of the labor organization concerned, as
well as to examine their books of accounts and other records to determine compliance
or non-compliance with the law. All of these provisions are designed to safeguard the
funds of a labor organization that they may not be squandered or frittered away by its
officers or by third persons to the detriment of its members.