The union representing workers at Gotamco Saw Mill declared a strike over unpaid wages. The Court of Industrial Relations ordered both sides back to work and to increase wages while the dispute was heard. Gotamco Saw Mill later accused the union of contempt for staging another strike. The court ruled the union violated its order but also found Gotamco Saw Mill hired new workers without permission. The issues were whether labor laws restricting strikes violated prohibitions on involuntary servitude, and whether the court's order for workers to return was also unconstitutional. The court found the labor laws were a valid exercise of state power to promote social justice and industry, and its order did not violate involuntary servitude since workers could resign if they felt compelled to work against
The union representing workers at Gotamco Saw Mill declared a strike over unpaid wages. The Court of Industrial Relations ordered both sides back to work and to increase wages while the dispute was heard. Gotamco Saw Mill later accused the union of contempt for staging another strike. The court ruled the union violated its order but also found Gotamco Saw Mill hired new workers without permission. The issues were whether labor laws restricting strikes violated prohibitions on involuntary servitude, and whether the court's order for workers to return was also unconstitutional. The court found the labor laws were a valid exercise of state power to promote social justice and industry, and its order did not violate involuntary servitude since workers could resign if they felt compelled to work against
The union representing workers at Gotamco Saw Mill declared a strike over unpaid wages. The Court of Industrial Relations ordered both sides back to work and to increase wages while the dispute was heard. Gotamco Saw Mill later accused the union of contempt for staging another strike. The court ruled the union violated its order but also found Gotamco Saw Mill hired new workers without permission. The issues were whether labor laws restricting strikes violated prohibitions on involuntary servitude, and whether the court's order for workers to return was also unconstitutional. The court found the labor laws were a valid exercise of state power to promote social justice and industry, and its order did not violate involuntary servitude since workers could resign if they felt compelled to work against
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.
Mark Anthony Zabal, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, and Odon S. Bandiola v. President Rodrigo Duterte, Salvador Medildea, and Eduardo Año, G.R No. 238467, February 12, 2019.