7. Construction of Labor Legislation (Civil Code, Art. 1702)

Articles 1700 to 1703, Civil Code

Art. 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.

Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public.

Art. 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.

Article 1703. No contract which practically amounts to involuntary servitude, under any guise whatsoever, shall be valid.

Construction in favor of labor; limitations

All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. (Labor Code, Art. 4)

It is construed in favor of labor if there is a doubt as to the meaning of the legal and contractual provision. If the provision is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied in accordance with its express terms. (MERALCO v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78763, 1989)

The law also recognizes that management has rights, which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. (St. Luke’s v. NLRC, G.R. No. 162053, 2007)

While labor laws should be construed liberally in favor of labor, we must be able to balance this with the equally important right of the [employer] to due process. (Gagui v. Dejero, G.R. No. 196036, 2013)

If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scale of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. (Dreamland Hotel Resort v. Johnson, G.R. No. 191455, 2014).

Labor Code, Art. 4

All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. [Art. 4, Labor Code]

In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. [Art. 1702, Civil Code]

Liberal Construction Of the laws Art. 4 of the Labor Code mandates that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions thereof shall be resolved in favor of labor. This is merely in keeping with the spirit of our Constitution and laws which lean over backwards in favor of the working class, and mandate that every doubt must be resolved in their favor. [Hocheng Philippines Corporation v. Farrales, G.R. No. 211497 (2015)]

Of Labor Contracts

A CBA, as a labor contract within the contemplation of Art. 1700 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations between labor and capital, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest, thus, it must yield to the common good. As such, it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve. [Cirtek Employees Labor Union-FFW v. Cirtek Electronics, G.R. No. 190515 (2010)]

Limitations of Construction in Favor of Labor Construction in favor of labor; limitations

It is construed in favor of labor if there is a doubt as to the meaning of the legal and contractual provision. If the provision is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied in accordance with its express terms. (MERALCO v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78763, 1989)

The law also recognizes that management has rights, which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. (St. Luke’s v. NLRC, G.R. No. 162053, 2007)

While labor laws should be construed liberally in favor of labor, we must be able to balance this with the equally important right of the [employer] to due process. (Gagui v. Dejero, G.R. No. 196036, 2013)

If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scale of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. (Dreamland Hotel Resort v. Johnson, G.R. No. 191455, 2014).