Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-44169 December 3, 1985
ROSARO A. GAA, petitioner,
vs.
T!E !ONORA"LE COURT O# APPEALS, EUROP!L NDUSTRES
CORPORATON, $%& CESAR R. RO'AS, De()*+ S,er-.. o. M$%-/$, respondents.
Federico C. Alikpala and Federico Y. Alikpala, Jr. for petitioner.
Borbe and Palma for private respondent.

PATA0O, J.:
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals
pro#ul$ated on March %&, '()*, affir#in$ the decision of the !ourt of First Instance of
Manila.
It appears that respondent +urophil Industries !orporation as for#erl, one of the
tenants in Trinit, -uildin$ at T.M. .ala Street, Manila, hile petitioner Rosario ". /aa
as then the buildin$ ad#inistrator. On Dece#ber '0, '()%, +urophil Industries
co##enced an action 1!ivil !ase No. (0)223 in the !ourt of First Instance of Manila for
da#a$es a$ainst petitioner 4for havin$ perpetrated certain acts that +urophil Industries
considered a trespass upon its ri$hts, na#el,, cuttin$ of its electricit,, and re#ovin$ its
na#e fro# the buildin$ director, and $ate passes of its officials and e#plo,ees4 1p. 5)
Rollo3. On 6une 05, '()2, said court rendered 7ud$#ent in favor of respondent +urophil
Industries, orderin$ petitioner to pa, the for#er the su# of P'&,&&&.&& as actual
da#a$es, P8,&&&.&& as #oral da#a$es, P8,&&&.&& as e9e#plar, da#a$es and to pa,
the costs.
The said decision havin$ beco#e final and e9ecutor,, a rit of $arnish#ent as issued
pursuant to hich Deput, Sheriff !esar ". Ro9as on "u$ust ', '()8 served a Notice of
/arnish#ent upon +l /rande :otel, here petitioner as then e#plo,ed, $arnishin$
her 4salar,, co##ission and;or re#uneration.4 Petitioner then filed ith the !ourt of
First Instance of Manila a #otion to lift said $arnish#ent on the $round that her
4salaries, co##ission and, or re#uneration are e9e#pted fro# e9ecution under "rticle
')&5 of the Ne !ivil !ode. Said #otion as denied b, the loer !ourt in an order
dated Nove#ber ), '()8. " #otion for reconsideration of said order as li<eise
denied, and on 6anuar, 0*, '()* petitioner filed ith the !ourt of "ppeals a petition for
certiorari a$ainst filed ith the !ourt of "ppeals a petition for certiorari a$ainst said
order of Nove#ber ), '()8.
On March %&, '()*, the !ourt of "ppeals dis#issed the petition for certiorari. In
dis#issin$ the petition, the !ourt of "ppeals held that petitioner is not a #ere laborer as
conte#plated under "rticle ')&5 as the ter# laborer does not appl, to one ho holds a
#ana$erial or supervisor, position li<e that of petitioner, but onl, to those 4laborers
occup,in$ the loer strata.4 It also held that the ter# 4a$es4 #eans the pa, $iven4 as
hire or reard to artisans, #echanics, do#estics or #enial servants, and laborers
e#plo,ed in #anufactories, a$riculture, #ines, and other #anual occupation and
usuall, e#plo,ed to distin$uish the su#s paid to persons hired to perfor# #anual labor,
s<illed or uns<illed, paid at stated ti#es, and #easured b, the da,, ee<, #onth, or
season,4 citin$ *) !.6. 058, hich is the ordinar, acceptation of the said ter#, and that
4a$es4 in Spanish is 47ornal4 and one ho receives a a$e is a 47ornalero.4
In the present petition for revie on certiorari of the aforesaid decision of the !ourt of
"ppeals, petitioner =uestions the correctness of the interpretation of the then !ourt of
"ppeals of "rticle ')&5 of the Ne !ivil !ode hich reads as follos>
"RT. ')&5. The laborer?s a$e shall not be sub7ect to e9ecution or
attach#ent, e9cept for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothin$ and
#edical attendance.
It is be,ond dispute that petitioner is not an ordinar, or ran< and file laborer but 4a
responsibl, place e#plo,ee,4 of +l /rande :otel, 4responsible for plannin$, directin$,
controllin$, and coordinatin$ the activities of all house<eepin$ personnel4 1p. (8, Rollo3
so as to ensure the cleanliness, #aintenance and orderliness of all $uest roo#s,
function roo#s, public areas, and the surroundin$s of the hotel. !onsiderin$ the
i#portance of petitioner?s function in +l /rande :otel, it is undeniable that petitioner is
occup,in$ a position e=uivalent to that of a #ana$erial or supervisor, position.
In its broadest sense, the ord 4laborer4 includes ever,one ho perfor#s an, <ind of
#ental or ph,sical labor, but as co##onl, and custo#aril, used and understood, it onl,
applies to one en$a$ed in so#e for# of #anual or ph,sical labor. That is the sense in
hich the courts $enerall, appl, the ter# as applied in e9e#ption acts, since persons of
that class usuall, loo< to the reard of a da,?s labor for i##ediate or present support
and so are #ore in need of the e9e#ption than are other. 100 "#. 6ur. 00 citin$ Briscoe
vs. Montgomery, (% /a *&0, 0& S+ 2&@ Miller vs. Dgas, )) /a 2 "# St Rep '(0@ !tate
1
e" rel #.$.%. &rocery vs. Aand, '&5 Aa 8'0, %0 So 2%%@ 'ildner vs. Fergson, 20 Minn
''0, 2% NB )(%@ * AR" %%5@ "nno '&0 "# St Rep. 52.
In (liver vs. Macon )ard*are Co., (5 /a 02( S+ 2&%, it as held that in deter#inin$
hether a particular laborer or e#plo,ee is reall, a 4laborer,4 the character of the ord
he does #ust be ta<en into consideration. :e #ust be classified not accordin$ to the
arbitrar, desi$nation $iven to his callin$, but ith reference to the character of the
service re=uired of hi# b, his e#plo,er.
In 'ildner vs. Fergson, 20 Minn ''0, 2% NB )(%, the !ourt also held that all #en ho
earn co#pensation b, labor or or< of an, <ind, hether of the head or hands,
includin$ 7ud$es, la,ers, ban<ers, #erchants, officers of corporations, and the li<e, are
in so#e sense 4laborin$ #en.4 -ut the, are not 4laborin$ #en4 in the popular sense of
the ter#, hen used to refer to a #ust presu#e, the le$islature used the ter#. The
!ourt further held in said case>
There are #an, cases holdin$ that contractors, consultin$ or
assistant en$ineers, a$ents, superintendents, secretaries of
corporations and liver, stable <eepers, do not co#e ithin the
#eanin$ of the ter#. 1Po*ell v. +ldred, %( Mich, 882, Atkin v.
'asson, 08 N.C. 250@ !,ort v. Medberry, 0( :un. %(@ Dean v. De
'olf, '* :un. '5*@ -rasen v. Bckel, ') :un. 2*%@ +ricson v. Bro*n,
%( -arb. %(&@ Coffin v. .eynolds, %) N.C. *2&@ Brsie v. &riffit,, %2
!al. %&*@ Dave v. /nan, *0 !al. 2&&3.
Thus, in Jones vs. Avery, 8& Mich, %0*, '8 N.B. Rep. 2(2, it as held that a travelin$
sales#an, sellin$ b, sa#ple, did not co#e ithin the #eanin$ of a constitutional
provision #a<in$ stoc<holders of a corporation liable for 4labor debts4 of the corporation.
In -line vs. .ssell ''% /a. '&58, %( S+ 2)), citin$ (liver vs. Macon )ard*are Co.,
spra, it as held that a laborer, ithin the statute e9e#ptin$ fro# $arnish#ent the
a$es of a 4laborer,4 is one hose or< depends on #ere ph,sical poer to perfor#
ordinar, #anual labor, and not one en$a$ed in services consistin$ #ainl, of or<
re=uirin$ #ental s<ill or business capacit,, and involvin$ the e9ercise of intellectual
faculties.
So, also in 'akefield vs. Fargo, (& N.C. 0'%, the !ourt, in construin$ an act #a<in$
stoc<holders in a corporation liable for debts due 4laborers, servants and apprentices4
for services perfor#ed for the corporation, held that a 4laborer4 is one ho perfor#s
#enial or #anual services and usuall, loo<s to the reard of a da,?s labor or services
for i##ediate or present support. "nd in 'eymot, vs. !anborn, 2% N.:. ')%, 5& "#.
Dec. '22, it as held that 4laborer4 is a ter# ordinaril, e#plo,ed to denote one ho
subsists b, ph,sical toil in contradistinction to those ho subsists b, professional s<ill.
"nd in Consolidated 0ank %ine Co. vs. )nt, 5% Ioa, *, %0 "#. St. Rep. 058, 2% N.B.
'&8), '0 A.R.". 2)*, it as stated that 4laborers4 are those persons ho earn a
livelihood b, their on #anual labor.
"rticle ')&5 used the ord 4a$es4 and not 4salar,4 in relation to 4laborer4 hen it
declared hat are to be e9e#pted fro# attach#ent and e9ecution. The ter# 4a$es4 as
distin$uished fro# 4salar,4, applies to the co#pensation for #anual labor, s<illed or
uns<illed, paid at stated ti#es, and #easured b, the da,, ee<, #onth, or season, hile
4salar,4 denotes a hi$her de$ree of e#plo,#ent, or a superior $rade of services, and
i#plies a position of office> b, contrast, the ter# a$es 4 indicates considerable pa, for
a loer and less responsible character of e#plo,#ent, hile 4salar,4 is su$$estive of a
lar$er and #ore i#portant service 1%8 "#. 6ur. 2(*3.
The distinction beteen a$es and salar, as adverted to in Bell vs. #ndian %ivestock
Co. 1Te9. Sup.3, '' S.B. %22, herein it as said> 4?Ba$es? are the co#pensation $iven
to a hired person for service, and the sa#e is true of ?salar,?. The ords see# to be
s,non,#ous, convertible ter#s, thou$h e believe that use and $eneral acceptation
have $iven to the ord ?salar,? a si$nificance so#ehat different fro# the ord ?a$es?
in this> that the for#er is understood to relate to position of office, to be the
co#pensation $iven for official or other service, as distin$uished fro# ?a$es?, the
co#pensation for labor.4 "nnotation '&0 "#. St. Rep. 5', (8.
Be do not thin< that the le$islature intended the e9e#ption in "rticle ')&5 of the Ne
!ivil !ode to operate in favor of an, but those ho are laborin$ #en or o#en in the
sense that their or< is #anual. Persons belon$in$ to this class usuall, loo< to the
reard of a da,?s labor for i##ediate or present support, and such persons are #ore in
need of the e9e#ption than an, others. Petitioner Rosario ". /aa is definitel, not ithin
that class.
Be find, therefore, and so hold that the Trial !ourt did not err in den,in$ in its order of
Nove#ber ), '()8 the #otion of petitioner to lift the notice of $arnish#ent a$ainst her
salaries, co##ission and other re#uneration fro# +l /rande :otel since said salaries,
!o##ission and other re#uneration due her fro# the +l /rande :otel do not constitute
a$es due a laborer hich, under "rticle ')&5 of the !ivil !ode, are not sub7ect to
e9ecution or attach#ent.
IN VI+B OF T:+ FOR+/OIN/, Be find the present petition to be ithout #erit and
hereb, "FFIRM the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals, ith costs a$ainst petitioner.
SO ORD+R+D.
2