This appeal puts in issue the constitutionality of Republic Act 1635,1 as amended by Republic Act 2631,2 which provides

as follows:
To help raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, the Director of Posts shall order for the period from August nineteen to September thirty every year the printing and issue of semi-postal
stamps of different denominations with face value showing the regular postage charge plus the additional amount of five centavos for the said purpose, and during the said period, no mail matter
shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semi-postal stamps: Provided, That no such additional charge of five centavos shall be imposed on newspapers. The additional proceeds realized
from the sale of the semi-postal stamps shall constitute a special fund and be deposited with the National Treasury to be expended by the Philippine Tuberculosis Society in carrying out its noble
work to prevent and eradicate tuberculosis.
The respondent Postmaster General, in implementation of the law, thereafter issued four (4) administrative orders numbered 3 (June 20, 1958), 7 (August 9, 1958), 9 (August 28, 1958), and 10 (July 15,
1960). All these administrative orders were issued with the approval of the respondent Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digest-labor-Relationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digest-labor-Relationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digestlabor-Relationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digest-labor-Relationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digest-laborRelationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digest-labor-Relationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/Case-Digest-labor-Relationhttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/185111046/CaseDigest-labor-Relation

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiffappellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiffappellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU CITY