Two  hundred sixty-five (265)  employees of the  Manila Hotel Co., who had to be  dismissed  and paid the value of their accumulated leave under section 286 of the  Administrative  Code, as  amended by Republic Act No. 611, when the hotel was leased to a private concern on June 30, 1954 brought the present action  to recover from  the  company an additional amount for accrued leave alleged  to  be due them under the same section of the Administrative  Code, as later amended by Republic  Act No. 1081, approved on June 15, 1954,  that is to  say,   fifteen  days before they were separated from the service.

On defendant's motion, the lower  court ordered  the complaint  dismissed on the ground  that it did not state a cause of action in that Republic Act No. 1081 did  not have a retroactive effect.   From  that order plaintiffs  appealed directly to this  Court,  the total amount  claimed being more  than P50.000.

We find  the appeal to be without merit.

As already stated, plaintiffs  have already been paid  the value of their accrued leave  under section  28S  of  the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 611,  which reads;

"Sec. 286. When vacation leave  and sick  leave may  be taken. Vacation leave and sick  leave shall he cumulative and any part thereof which  may not be taken within the calendar year in which earned may  "be carried over to the  succeeding years, but whenever any officer, employee, or laborer of the Government of the Philippines shall voluntarily resign, or be separated from the service through no fault of his own, he shall  be entitled to the commutation  of  all accumulated  vacation and/or sick leave to his credit: Provided, That the total vacation leave and sick leave that can accumulate  to the credit of any officer or employee shall, in no case, exceed five: months: Provided, further, That the proper  Department  Head may in his discretion authorize  the commutation of the  salary that "would be received during the  period of vacation and  sick leave  of any  appointed officer  or employee or  teacher or laborer of the Philippine Government  and direct its payment on or before  the beginning of such leave from the fund  out of which the salary would have been paid: Provided, furthermore, That no person  whose leave has been commuted  following his  separation  from the  service shall  be reappointed or reemployed under the  Government of the  Philippines before the expiration of the leave commuted unless he first refunds the money value of the unexpired portion  of  the leave  commuted." (Italics supplied.)

Plaintiffs,  however, claim  that  they  were entitled  to ten months' accrued leave  because  the aforementioned section of the Administrative Code was, several days before their dismissal,  amended by Republic Act  No. 1081, to read as follows:

"SEC. 286.  When vacation leave and  sick leave  may be taken. Vacation, leave  and  sick leave shall be cumulative and any part thereof which may not be taken within the calendar year in which earned may be carried over to the succeeding years, but "whenever any officer, employee, or laborer of the Government of the Philippines shall voluntarily  resign or be separated from the  service through no fault of his own, he shall be entitled to the commutation of all accumulated vacation and/or sick leave to his credit: Provided, That the total vacation leave and sick leave that  can accumulate  to tha credit of any officers or employee shall, in no case, exceed ton months: Provided,  further,  That the proper Department Head  may  in his discretion  authorize the commutation of the salary that "would ho received during' the period of vacation and  sick  leave of any appointed officer or employee or teacher or  laborer  of the Philippine Government and  direct its payment on or before the beginning of such leave from, the fund  out of which the salary would have been paid: Provided, furthermore,  That no  person whose leave has been commuted  following his separation from the service shall be reappointed or reemployed under the Government of the Philippines be- fore  the expiration of the leave commuted  unless he first refunds the money value  of the unexpired portion  of the  leave commuted," (Italics supplied.)

The question to determine is whether this latter amendment applies retroactively  to  employees  whose length  of service prior to its approval would give them, an accumulated leave in excess of five months,  the limit fixed by law" before the last  amendment.

Article 4 of the new Civil Code provides  that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. As Republic Act No. 1081 does not  provide that it is to have retroactive effect, it can only be given effect from the date of its approval.

As a matter of  fact, this is the  construction that has been placed upon that  Act by  the department of the Government  charged with its enforcement.  Thus, when  the Commissioner of Civil  Service, on August 10, 1954, passed upon the claim of the present plaintiffs against the Manila Hotel management, he  ruled that "the accumulation of the additional five  months  total vacation  and sick  leave  (to the original five months allowed under Republic Act No. 611) should begin only from June 15, 1954."

Confirmatory of  that ruling  is  the opinion rendered by the Secretary  of Justice, Hon.  Pedro  Tuason, at  the  request of the Executive  Secretary, which reads:

November  27, 1954

THE EXECUTIVE  SECRETARY
Malacañang, Manila
Sir:

This is with reference to your request for  opinion on whether or not Republic Act No. 1081,  which, has increased the maximum  accumulable leave of a government officer  or employee from 5 months to 10 months, applies  retroactively  to those whose length of service prior to  its approval  would have entitled them to an accumulated leave in  excess of five months.

Prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 1081, section 286 of the Revised Administrative  Code provides as  follows:

(Sec. 286. When vacation leave and sick leave may be taken. Vacation leave and sick leave shall be cumulative and any part thereof which may  not be  taken within  the calendar year in which earned may be carried over to the succeeding years, but whenever any officer, employee,  or  laborer of the Government of the Philippines  shall voluntarily  resign or be separated  from the service through no  fault of  his own, lie shall be entitled to the commutation of  all  accumulated vacatication and/or sick  leave to his credit: Provided, That the total vacation  leave  and sick leave that  can accumulate to the credit of any  officers or employee shall,  in no  cane, exceed five  months. * * *.' (As  amended by Rep. Act  No. 611.)

We are informed that the Bureau  of Civil  Service had construed and enforced the above-quoted provision in the  sense that  after an officer or employee had  accumulated more than five months' vacation and  sick leave, any leave  accruing during the calendar  year but not- taken within that year was  automatically  forfeited.

The Congress is deemed to have been  aware  of this long-continued, contemporaneous  and practical interpretation  of the  statute by  the administrative officer charged with its  administration and  enforcement, when Republic Act. No. 1081 was enacted, and to have  sanctioned that interpretation as the  legislative intent.  The result then is that upon the  approval of the amendatory  law,  no leave already earned in excess  of the five-month maximum  stood to the credit of any officer or employee.  Totally and  absolutely lost and legally non-existent,  such excess could  only be  validated  or restored by an  express or  clear declaration by the law-maker.   There is nothing in Republic Act No. 1081 from which an intention of this sort can be gathered.

I am, therefore, constrained to answer the query in the negative.

Respectfully,

(Sgd.)   PEDRO  TUASON

Secretary of Justice"

It is a rule of  statutory  construction  that  "courts  will and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by  the executive officers, whose duty it is to enforce  it  and  unless  such interpretation  is  clearly erroneous will  ordinarily be controlled thereby."  (Molina vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 545; see also In re Allen, 2 Phil. 630, Everett vs. Bautista, 69 Phil. 137.)

But it is not only the executive branch of the Government that  has  construed Republic Act No. 1081 as having only a prospective effect.  For Congress itself so construed that Act when in 1955 it approved a bill (House Bill No. 3097)  to give the Act retroactive effect, for the reason so it was  explained that though its  proponent had intended it to have  a retroactive  effect,  it "has  (in fact) prospective effect" in the sense that "leave earned but not enjoyed prior to its approval was not  counted."  The bill, however, never became law because it was vetoed for lack of funds.

Plaintiffs-appellants  invoke the ruling of  this Court in the  case of Manila Railroad  Co.  vs. CIR et  al., G.  R. No. L-4616, July  31,  1952, where the heirs of  an employee of the Manila Railroad Company who died  in 1945 were awarded the money equivalent of his unused vacation and sick leave  although the  law then in force provided for the forfeiture thereof upon the employee's separation from the service, for the reason, it is  alleged, that  Republic Act 611, effective only on May 5, 1951, which suppressed that part of the law relating to forfeiture,  was  applied.  But a careful reading of the decision will show that the ruling was specifically based on a circular issued by the manager of the railroad company relative to the "grant of monetary aid to former employees and/or to the latter's dependents, who could not be reinstated on account of illness or death" and also on the "long-standing policy of the railroad company to  pay vacation and sick leave duly acquired by  its employees and laborers  effective upon separation from the service."  Such portion  of the decision as mentions Republic Act No.  611 was mere dictum and cannot, therefore, be  taken  as  the ratio decidendi of the  case.

Lastly, plaintiffs-appellants cite article 1702 of the new Civil Code,  which provides  that  in case  of doubt,  labor legislation shall be construed in favor of the laborer.   As the article is expressly intended to apply in case of doubt, it can have no  application where, as in the present case, no doubt exists.

In view of the foregoing, the order of  dismissal is  affirmed, with costs  against the appellants.

Paras, C.  J., Bengzon,  Montemayor,  Bautista  Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Felix, JJ., concur.