Facts:

PEOPLE VS. POMAR

[46 Phil 126; G.R. No. L-22008; 3 Nov 1924]

Macaria Fajardo was an employee of La Flor de la Isabela, a Tobacco factory. She was granted a vacation leave, by
reason of her pregnancy, which commenced on the 16th of July 1923. According to Fajardo, during that time, she
was not given the salary due her in violation of the provisions of Act No. 3071. Fajardo filed a criminal complaint
based on Section 13 and 15 of said Act against the manager of the tobacco Factory, Julio Pomar, herein defendant.
The latter, on the other hand, claims that the facts in the complaint did not constitute an offense and further alleges
that the aforementioned provisions of Act No. 3071 was unconstitutional. Section 13, Act No. 3071 provides that,
“Every person, firm or corporation owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description shall be
obliged to grant to any woman employed by it as laborer who may be pregnant, thirty days vacation with pay before
and another thirty days after confinement: Provided, That the employer shall not discharge such laborer without just
cause, under the penalty of being required to pay to her wages equivalent to the total of two months counting from
the day of her discharge.” Section 15 of the same Act provides for the penalty of any violation of section 13. The
latter was enacted by the legislature in the exercise of its supposed Police Power with the purpose of safeguarding
the health of pregnant women laborers in "factory, shop or place of labor of any description," and of insuring to
them, to a certain extent, reasonable support for one month before and one month after their delivery. The trial court
rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff, sentencing the defendant to pay the fine of fifty pesos and in case of
insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Hence, the case was raised to the Court of Appeals which affirmed
the former decision.

Issue:

Whether or not Section 13 of Act No. 3071 is unconstitutional.

Whether or not the promulgation of the questioned provision was a valid exercise of Police Power.

Held:

The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of Act No. 3071 to be unconstitutional for being violative or restrictive of
the right of the people to freely enter into contracts for their affairs. It has been decided several times, that the right
to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual, protected by the "due process of law" clause of
the constitution. The contracting parties may establish any agreements, terms, and conditions they may deem
advisable, provided they are not contrary to law, morals or public policy

The police power of the state is a very broad and expanding power. The police power may encompass every law for
the restraint and punishment of crimes, for the preservation of the public peace, health, and morals. But that power
cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate the express inhibition of the
constitution. The Police Power is subject to and is controlled by the paramount authority of the constitution of the
state, and will not be permitted to violate rights secured or guaranteed by the latter.