You are on page 1of 2

Facts:

The Kaisahan ng Manggagawa ng Kahoy sa Pilipinas declared a strike


against Gotamco Saw Mill because thelatter did not accede to the formers
request of a salary increase. While the case was being heard by the Court
of Industrial Relations, the parties reached a temporary wage arrangement
and the workers were ordered to go back to work while the saw mill was
ordered to increase the salaries of the workers by P2.00, let them take
home small piecesof lumber to be utilized as firewood, and was enjoined
from laying-off, suspending, or dismissing any laboreraffiliated with the
petitioning union. Conversely, the workers were enjoined from staging walkouts or strikes duringthe pendency of the hearing.Gotamco Saw Mill
subsequently filed an urgent motion asking that the petitioning union be
held in contemptof court for having staged a strike during the pendency of
the main case, for picketing on the premises of the saw mill,and for grave
threats which prevented the remaining laborers from working. The union
alleged that one of itsrepresentatives conferred with the management of
the saw mill, but instead of entertaining their grievances, the saw mill
ordered the stoppage of the work and employed four new Chinese laborers
without express authority of the courtand in violation of Section 19 of
Commonwealth Act No. 103. The CIR ruled that there was a violation of the
previousorder of the CIR by the union, which warranted the
commencement of contempt proceedings and that the saw milldid not
violate Section 19 of CA 103.
Issue: W/N Section 19 of CA 103 is unconstitutional for being in violation of
the organic proscription of involuntary servitude.
Ruling: NO. Section 19 of CA 103 does not offend against the constitutional
inhibition proscribing involuntary servitude. The provisions of CA 103 were
inspired by the constitutional injunction making it the concern of the Stateto
promote social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all
the people. In order to attain this object,Section 19 was promulgated which
grants to labor what it grants to capital and denies to labor what it denies
tocapital. Among other things, Section 19 lays down the implied condition
that when any dispute between theemployer or landlord and the employee,
tenant or laborer has been submitted to the CIR for settlement or
arbitration,pursuant to the provisions of the Act, and pending award or
decision by it, the employee, tenant or laborer shall notstrike or walk out of
his employment when so joined by the court after hearing and when public

interest so requires,and if he has already done so, that he shall forthwith


return to it, upon order of the court, which shall be issued only after hearing
when public interest so requires or when the dispute cannot, in its opinion,
be promptly decided orsettled. Thus, the voluntariness of the employees
entering into such a contract of employmenthe has a free choice between
entering into it or notwith such an implied condition, negatives the
possibility of involuntary servitudeensuing.
Issue:
W/N the previous order of the CIR, which ordered the union laborers to go
back to work, is unconstitutionalfor being in violation of the organic
proscription of involuntary servitude.
Ruling:
NO. The order of the court was for the striking workers to return to their
work. That order was made afterhearing, and Section 19 of CA 103
authorizes such order when the dispute cannot in its opinion be promptly
decidedor settled. The very impossibility of prompt decision or settlement of
the dispute confers upon the CIR the power toissue the order for the
reason that the public has an interest in preventing undue stoppage or
paralyzation of the wheels of industry.

Several laws promulgated which apparently infringe the human rights of


individuals were subjected toregulation by the State basically in the
exercise of its paramount police power.

From Justice Perfectos concurring and dissenting opinion: If the laborers


should feel that they arecompelled against their will to perform something
which is repugnant to their conscience or dignity, they need not resort to
any court action to seek judicial settlement of the controversy, as they can
resign fromtheir work and there is no power that can compel them to
continue therein.