ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING COMPANY, appellant, against COURT OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS, and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., Appealed.

Messrs. DeWitt, Perkins and Ponce Enrile in representation of the appellant.

Messrs. Paguia and Lerum in representation of the respondent, National Labor Union.

SYLLABUS

1. LAW No. 103 OF THE COMMONWEALTH; CONSIITUCIONALITY; PURPOSES OF THE

LAW; TRIBUNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; PATRONS AND EM PLEADOS. - Law
No. 103 of the Commonwealth that, as its title indicates, provides for the protection of the worker, creating
an Industrial Relations Tribunal empowered to set a minimum wage for the workers and the maximum
rent to be paid by the tenants; to enforce compulsory arbitration between employers or owners and
employees or tenants, respectively, and prescribe penalties for the infractions of its decrees, has been
promulgated by the National Assembly in virtue of the precepts contained in article 5, Title II; Article 6,
Title XIII; and Articles 1 and 2, Title VIII, of the Constitution of the Philippines.

2. ID .; ID; ID; ID; ID; ID. - In compliance with these constitutional precepts, the National Assembly
promulgated Commonwealth Law No. 103 creating the Industrial Relations Tribunal, which is a special
court with judicial powers (Pambusco Employees Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, GR No. 46727;
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, GR No. 46496, concurring opinion of Judge Jose P.
Laurel). Article 1 of said law provides that the Industrial Relations Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction to
consider, investigate, decide and settle any question, issue, conflict or dispute that affects or arises
between employers and employees or workers, and between owners and tenants or sharecroppers, and
for the relations between them, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the law. And Article 20
prescribes that in the hearing, investigation and resolution of any question or conflict, and in the exercise
of any of its duties and faculties, the court shall act in accordance with justice and fairness and the
substantial merits of the cause, without regard to technicalities or legal formalities, and will not be subject
to any technical rules of legal proof, but will form judgment in a way that creates fair and equitable. Law
No. 103 confers on the Industrial Relations Tribunal full discretionary power to resolve and decide
agrarian and industrial disputes in a manner that it believes fair and equitable, dispensing with legal
technicalities, and the faculty thus granted is judicial and non-legislative, for what does not violate the
principle of separation of powers, the prohibition on the delegation of legislative powers or the iqualitary
protection before the law. As has been said in the Cincinnati affair, W. & ZR Co. v. Comm'rs, of Clinton
County ([1852], 1 Ohio St., 88), quoted in the Rubi affair against The Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Jur.
Fil., 675), "There is a real difference between delegating power to enact laws, which necessarily implies
discretion as to what they must be, and confer attribution or discretion to enforce them, a discretion that
must be exercised in accordance with the law, the first can not be done in any way; second no objection
can be raised. " The first can not be done in any way; no objection can be raised against the second.
" The first can not be done in any way; no objection can be raised against the second. "cralaw virtua1aw
library

3. ID .; ID; ID; ID; ID; ID. - A simple reading of Article 20 of Law No. 103 shows that the law has not
empowered the Industrial Relations Tribunal to investigate and resolve issues and conflicts between
workers and employers, and tenants and owners, in an arbitrary and capricious manner without to submit
to a certain behavior standard. The article clearly states that the rules of procedure adopted, to which the
court must adjust, should be inspired by fairness and fairness, and prescribes that the criteria formed
should be based on the substantial merits of the case without consideration of the technicalities or legal
formalities. Law No. 103 that creates a special tribunal called the Industrial Relations Tribunal with power
to issue its own regulations and to resolve and decide agrarian and industrial disputes in accordance with
the dictates of justice and equity, can not be challenged on the grounds that it authorizes the deprivation
of liberty and property without due process of law; nor does it conflict with the precept of Article 13, Title
VIII, of the Constitution because the Industrial Relations Tribunal is not of the same category as the
municipal courts, courts of peace and courts of first instance for which the regulations of the courts have
dictated by the Supreme Court. it can not be challenged on the grounds that it authorizes the deprivation
of liberty and property without due process of law; nor does it conflict with the precept of Article 13, Title
VIII, of the Constitution because the Industrial Relations Tribunal is not of the same category as the
municipal courts, courts of peace and courts of first instance for which the regulations of the courts have
dictated by the Supreme Court. it can not be challenged on the grounds that it authorizes the deprivation
of liberty and property without due process of law; nor does it conflict with the precept of Article 13, Title
VIII, of the Constitution because the Industrial Relations Tribunal is not of the same category as the
municipal courts, courts of peace and courts of first instance for which the regulations of the courts have
dictated by the Supreme Court.

4. ID .; ID; ID; ID; ID; ID; COMMISSIONERS. - The commissioner was appointed by the Industrial
Relations Tribunal in the exercise of his power conferred by Article 10 of Commonwealth Law No. 103
and in the inspection and hearings held by the commissioner and the court, respectively, the parties were
represented duly, they were heard and presented the evidence they had available and thought it
convenient to offer. Such inspections and hearings had the character of an impartial and fair judicial
hearing and constitute the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution.

5. ID .; ID; ID; ID; ID; ID; FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS. - The de facto findings of the Industrial Relations
Tribunal show that the challenged order is sustained by the result of the investigation carried out by the
commissioner and the evidence that the parties presented directly before the Court. In these conclusions,
all the evidence presented by the parties has been considered and analyzed by the Industrial Relations
Tribunal and it is inevitable that the order is not arbitrary and is justified and supported by 108 proven
facts.

6. ID .; ID; ID; ID; ID; ID; PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES 'JOURNALS. - The Industrial Relations Tribunal,
as has already been said, is a special court and as such has the power to order that the appellant pay the
wages of its employees and workers who have been replaced. Articles 1 and 4 of Commonwealth Law
No. 103, as amended by Article 1 of Law No. 254, confer authority and jurisdiction to the Industrial
Relations Tribunal to hear, resolve and decide all issues, disputes and disputes between employers and
workers and owners and landowners, and the wages of 108 workers replaced, during the time they were
separated from service,

DECISION

IMPERIAL, M .:

This is an appeal by certiorarifiled by the appellant against the order issued by the Industrial Relations
Tribunal on May 6, 1939, which obliged him to reinstate in his previous works or in others substantially
equivalent to the 45 workers enumerated in the petition of March 31, 1939. the 10 workers headed by A.
Haber who were excluded indefinitely, within 10 days of receiving a copy of the order; to pay these 55
workers the wages they should have received from the date of their suspension or separation until their
replacement; and that pending other matters that the parties have submitted, the appellant refrains, under
penalty of contempt, from dismissing or excluding, without prior permission of the court, to any worker or
employee who was under his service at the time the dispute arose who is currently working in the mines
or who is reinstated in his work in accordance with the order; and against the decision of the same court
of August 17, 1939, which denied the motive of reconsideration of the appellant filed on May 26, 1939.

On December 12, 1938, the appealed National Labor Union, Inc., on behalf of the workers and
employees of the appellant who were members of that labor union, sent a letter to the appellant
requesting 21 claims in favor of its members. The letter was received by the office of the appellant in
Manila in an envelope stamped by the Baguio courier on the 30th of the same month. The officials of the
appellant called a meeting to their employees on January 2, 1939 and informed all their workers that
some of the demands had been accepted and had already been put into practice, others would be
considered and the rest would be to be rejected for being unreasonable, and they were advised not to
resort to violence and to observe legal methods in the settlement of their differences with the
appellant. On the night of the same day the workers and employees of the appellant went on strike and
left their jobs. The appellant immediately reported this strike to the Department of Labor and requested
his intervention in order to solve it. The Secretary of Labor appointed Adolfo Umengan, Special
Investigator of the Department, and Eladio C. Leaño, Public Defender of the Montanada Province, to
intervene and see how to solve the strike. These officials convened a conference attended by officials of
the appellant, representative of the strikers and Luis Lardizabal, Head of the Baguio Federation of Labor,
a labor organization affiliated with National Labor Union, Inc. As a result of the conference, the parties
agreed on the following friendly arrangement:jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

"In order to have the present strike of the contractors and laborers of the respondent company who
staged a walk-out on January 3, 1939, amicably settled, the parties hereby mutually agree to the said
strike under the condition that all laborers will be readmitted upon the execution of this agreement;
provided, that all laborers whose services should be dispensed with due to lack of work in those tunnels
where they are no longer needed will be given not less than fifteen days employment from the date of this
settlement or resumption of work, and provided, further, that as soon as the stopes in 1360 and 1460
levels are opened and the services of men are needed,the company will give preference to efficient
laborers when reducing the personnel as above mentioned in those working places and may transfer
them to other divisions to replace inefficient men. "cralaw virtua1aw library

"In witness hereof, the laborers represented by a committee of Messrs. Luis Lardizabal, Tomas Dirige,
Victoriano Madayag, Maximo Conaoi, Daniel Lambinicio, and Juan Cerilo and the Antamok Goldfields
Mining Co. as represented by its President, Mr Andres Soriano, have hereunto placed their signatures
this 4th day of January, 1939. " cralaw virtua1aw library

The agreement was signed by the parties on January 4, 1939, but the workers did not appear until 9 a.m.
on the morning of the 6th of the same month. However, the appellant's management did not allow any
worker to enter the underground section known as the "830 level" because the air had been stale due to
the strike and it was necessary to renew it with clean air. order to avoid personal misfortunes. This
precaution was taken by the workers as a refusal of the appellant to work again, so they declared
themselves on strike again. The workers who worked in the mine called "680 division," another separate
mine located 3 kilometers from the factory, joined the strikers in sympathy. Once again the Department of
Labor intervened and through the mediation of Eladio C.

On January 9, 1939 the Department of Labor endorsed the dispute to the Industrial Relations Tribunal in
accordance with Article 4 of Commonwealth Law No. 103 and said Tribunal held the first hearing of the
matter on the 13th of the same month in the City of Baguio. In this hearing, the 21 complaints of the
National Labor Union, Inc., were discussed one by one, and the parties were agreed on some of them,
others were submitted to the Court's decision, and the rest were left pending. be seen and resolved later.

On March 31, 1939, while the majority of the aforementioned claims still pending decision, the appealed
National Labor Union, Inc., filed a motion in which it was alleged that Capataz A. Haber and 9 other
workers of the appellant had been indefinitely suspended on the 29th of the same month; that these
workers had previously been transferred to external jobs in order to provide the appellant with an excuse
to separate them later from the service; that another group of about 30 workers were dismissed by the
company for no reason and without authorization from the court; and that the suspensions and
separations that were thus made were acts of revenge and discriminatory for the workers, for which
reason it was requested that the officials of the appellant responsible for these acts be punished for
contempt of court and that the appellant be forced to replace the workers in their primitive work in the
mines and pay them their salaries corresponding to the period in which they were separated from the
service. The appellant answered the motion denying the alleged facts and argued that Haber and his 9
colleagues were suspended for their continuous laziness during work hours and for their constant refusal
to work, and that the 45 workers headed by the Victorian Madayag foreman were dismissed for have
refused to point out those responsible for the mistreatment of foreman Juan Moldero in the morning of
March 30, 1939. The motion was made on April 3, 1939 and at the hearing the parties presented their
witnesses. The court appointed one of its special agents to be constituted in the appellant's mines and to
conduct an investigation in order to supplement the facts that occurred during the hearing. After
considering the evidence presented to him and the facts found by the appointed commissioner, the court
in his order of May 6, 1939, declared the following facts proven:jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The discharges and indefinite suspensions alleged in the motion were made by the respondent
without first securing the consent of the Court in violation of the order of this Court of January 23,
1939." cralaw virtua1aw library

"2. The discharges and indefinite suspensions were made by the respondent without just cause." cralaw
virtua1aw library

In the same order the Industrial Relations Tribunal makes the following considerations that support the
conclusions reached: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"In the order of January 23, 1939, the respondent was enjoined to refrain from discharging any laborer
involved in the dispute without just cause and without previous authority of the Court. dismissal in one
case and the alleged suspension for an indefinite time in the other, which has all the effects of a
discharge, were made without seeking the authority of the Court. " cralaw virtua1aw library

"The charge that Haber and the group of nine laborers were indefinitely suspended because of the
continuous loafing and refusal to work was not established. Under the circumstances, the provision of the
order of March 21, for the effect that these men should be returned to their work underground after the
completion of their work 'outside' should have been observed. the men. " cralaw virtua1aw library

precluded his hearing or seeing clearly what transpired above them in the place where Moldero was
assaulted. An ocular inspection of the premises made by the researcher confirmed this view. So far as is
known, despite the investigations conducted by the officials of the company and the policemen of the
camp and by the constabulary authorities in Baguio, the person responsible for the stoning has not been
determined. The precipitate and unwarranted dismissal of the forty-five men after the incident seems to
have been spurred by an over anxious desire on the part of the company to get rid of these men.
" despite the investigations conducted by the officials of the company and the policemen of the camp and
by the constabulary authorities in Baguio, the person responsible for the stoning has not been
determined. The precipitate and unwarranted dismissal of the forty-five men after the incident seems to
have been spurred by an over anxious desire on the part of the company to get rid of these men.
" despite the investigations conducted by the officials of the company and the policemen of the camp and
by the constabulary authorities in Baguio, the person responsible for the stoning has not been
determined. The precipitate and unwarranted dismissal of the forty-five men after the incident seems to
have been spurred by an over anxious desire on the part of the company to get rid of these men. "cralaw
virtua1aw library

The temporary transfer of these men to 'outside' work was authorized by the Court in said order on the
strength of the assurance of the respondent that no more work suited for them inside the mines existed. It
was directed, however, in the aforesaid order that as soon as their work was completed the laborers
should be returned to their respective work inside the mines. Subsequent events and acts of the officials
of the respondent in charge of the mines have convinced the Court that work existed and exists for the
men inside the tunnels and their transfers were made to provide an opportunity to the company to
dispense with their services as soon as the work outside is completed. The unwarranted discharges of
Haber and nine others and those of Victoriano Madayag and his forty-four companions amply
demonstrated this conclusion. Upon the company's own admission, as shown in its reports in the records
and upon the findings of the investigator of the Court, more than four hundred (400) workers of different
classes among them, muckers, miners, timbermen, traders and foremen coming from different mines in
the region have been employed by the respondent as fresh laborers. Almost all, if not all, of these men
are not members of the petitioner, the National Labor Union, Inc. "cralaw virtua1aw library
"At the same time the work in different tunnels and divisions in the mines are allegedly being completed,
the old workers are being laid off. left without work. Instead of laying hands on the old menu laid off and
making them work in the tunnels needing hands and reinstating in the tunnel work those laborers
transferred to the 'outside' department, the respondent preferred to take in and hire other workers coming
from different places because evidently they are not members of the union. " cralaw virtua1aw library

had worked for months and years in the mines of the respondent and it can not be easily accepted that
their experience gained in their particular lines in the very property of the respondent would be inferior to
that attained by the other workmen in other mines in The district for an equal period of time. Their
inefficiency as a whole group can not be added since they were not translated to the work surface for this
reason but because of the alleged lack of work or completion of their work underground. Had any of them
been inefficient in the past, why can not they be explained why such laborer continued in the service as
the records of the company abound with instances of discharges made in the past of laborers who were
found inefficient or incompetent or whose services were unsatisfactory. "cralaw virtua1aw library

"The company asserts, ignorance of the union, affiliations of the men in the mine but the evidence stands
uncontradicted that before the strike was called to petition was presented by the management to the
signatures of about eight hundred (800) workers demanding higher pay and better working conditions
When the men struck, the operation of the mine was completely paralyzed and there is a strong indication
that a great majority of the workers joined openly the strike. the means at its command, to find for itself
the employees and laborers who remained loyal to the company and to consider those who fought as
either members of the union or its sympathizers. " cralaw virtua1aw library

"The respondent's claim to the motive for the suspension and discharges lacks the substance and support
in the evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it From what it appears, it is inferred that the
respondent desires to discourage membership in the union and to rout If possible, the wholesale
discharges were the expression of such desire. The acts in the mind of the Court, are calculated to have
two effects, they will not only affect the discharged laborers but would also discourage other laborers from
joining or remaining members of the union. " cralaw virtua1aw library

"The allegation that it has always been the policy to consider the laborer's connection with the company
terminated upon termination of the working place in which he has been employed is not shown by the
facts. place is completed, workers are transferred to another working place in one level or to another
level, although in some instances days may be before the men in a bunch can be absorbed in different
levels. " cralaw virtua1aw library

But all these arguments are meaningless in the face of the finding of the Court that the underground
laborers transferred to the 'outside' work are not wanting in experience, efficiency and other conditions
alleged to be found among the fresh laborers. The special qualifications to do particular work can not be
rightly invoked in favor of the employment of new laborers most especially in those cases of common or
unskilled labor like muckers, traders, helpers, etc. "cralaw virtua1aw library

"Under normal circumstances, the exercise of Judgment of the employer in selecting men should not be
interfered with. But when such judgment is arbitrarily exercised to the prejudice of members of a labor
union whose rights should be safeguarded in consonance with the policies of the law, the Court not only
feels it justified but rightly its duty to interfere to afford protection to the laborers affected. " cralaw
virtua1aw library

The appellant filed an extensive motion to reconsider the said order, motion that was denied by the
resolution of August 17, 1939. The order of May 6, 1939 and the resolution of August 17 of the same year
are the which gave rise to the appeal lodged by the appellant.

The appellant maintains that Commonwealth Law No. 103, as amended by laws Nos. 254 and 355, is
unconstitutional (1) because it violates the principle of separation of powers; (2) because for it the
National Assembly abdicated its legislative faculty violating the doctrine on the delegation of powers; (3)
because the judicial powers that the law confers upon the Industrial Relations Tribunal, considered
separately, are arbitrary and unreasonable and allow the deprivation of liberty and property without due
process of law; and (4) because assuming that the law is valid and constitutional in its entirety, the
portion, at least, of Article 20 that provides that the Industrial Relations Tribunal "adopt its procedural
regulations" It must be declared null and void because it violates Article 13 of Title VIII of the Constitution
of the Philippines which obliges the Industrial Relations Tribunal to observe the general rules of
procedure applicable to the courts of justice. The appellant alleges in this regard that since she has been
subjected to an arbitrary procedure different from the one applied to the other litigants in the Philippine
courts, she has been denied due process of law and the principle of equal protection before the courts.
laws.

Law No. 103 of the Commonwealth that, as its title indicates, provides for the protection of the worker,
creating an Industrial Relations Tribunal empowered to set a minimum wage for the workers and the
maximum rent to be paid by the tenants; to enforce compulsory arbitration between employers or owners
and employees or tenants, respectively, and prescribe penalties for the infractions of its decrees, has
been promulgated by the National Assembly in virtue of the precepts contained in article 5, Title II; Article
6, Title XIII; and Articles 1 and 2, Title VIII, of the Constitution of the Philippines that provide: jgc:
chanrobles.com.ph

"ART 5. The State shall take care to promote social justice in order to ensure the welfare and economic
stability of all village."cralaw virtua1aw library

"ART 6. The State shall protect all workers, especially women and minors, and shall regulate relations
between owners and tenants, and between labor and capital in industry and agriculture. The State may
establish compulsory arbitration. " cralaw virtua1aw library

"ART 1. The Judicial Power shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in other lower courts established by
law." cralaw virtua1aw library

"ART 2. The National Assembly shall have the power to define, prescribe and distribute the jurisdiction of
the various courts, ..." cralaw virtua1aw library

In compliance with the transcribed constitutional precepts, the National Assembly enacted
Commonwealth Law No. 103 creating the Industrial Relations Tribunal which is a special court with
judicial powers (Pambusco Employees Union v. Court of Industrial Relations Et. Al., GR No. 46727; Ang
Tibay Et. Al. V. Court of Industrial Relations Et. Al., GR No. 46496, concurring opinion of Judge Jose P.
Laurel). Article 1 of said law provides that the Industrial Relations Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction to
consider, investigate, decide and settle any question, issue, conflict or dispute that affects or arises
between employers and employees or workers, and between owners and tenants or sharecroppers, and
to regulate the relations between them, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the law. And
Article 20 prescribes that in the hearing, investigation and resolution of any question or conflict, and in the
exercise of any of its duties and faculties, the court shall act in accordance with justice and fairness and
the substantial merits of the cause, without considering the technicalities or legal forms, and will not be
subject to any technical rules of legal proof, but will form a trial in the way that creates fair and
equitable. Law No. 103 confers on the Industrial Relations Tribunal full discretionary power to resolve and
decide agrarian and industrial disputes in a manner that it believes fair and equitable, dispensing with
legal technicalities and formalities, and the faculty thus granted is judicial and non-legislative. , so it does
not violate the principle of separation of powers, the prohibition on the delegation of legislative powers or
the iqualitary protection before the law. As has been said in the Cincinnati affair, W. & ZR Co. v. Comm'rs,
of Clinton County '1852), 1 Ohio St., 88, cited in the Rubi et al case against The Provincial Board of
Mindoro, 39 Jur. Fil., 675, "There is a real difference between delegating the faculty to enact laws, which
necessarily implies discretion as to what they must be, and confer tribution or discretion to enforce them,
a discretion that must be exercised in accordance with the law, the first can not be done in any way; no
objection can be raised. " discretion that must be exercised in accordance with the law. The first can not
be done in any way; no objection can be raised against the second. " discretion that must be exercised in
accordance with the law. The first can not be done in any way; no objection can be raised against the
second. "cralaw virtua1aw library
To reinforce the arguments in favor of the unconstitutionality of Law No. 103, the appellant emphasizes
what was resolved in the Schechter v. Case. United States (1935), 295 US, 496, 79 Law. ed. 270, in
which the Supreme Court of the United States declared the National Recovery Act unconstitutional. There
is, however, a marked difference between that matter and that which is considered because the National
Recovery Act, instead of creating a court of justice, created together with legislative powers and authorize
the President of the United States to promulgate codes that prescribe the rules of precedence in order to
realize the purposes of the law.

The last ground that is alleged against the validity of Law No. 103 is that the judicial powers granted to
the Industrial Relations Tribunal are so arbitrary and unreasonable that they allow the deprivation of
liberty and property without due process of law; and that Article 20, at least, suffers from this fundamental
defect because it confers on the Industrial Relations Tribunal the power to issue its own rules of
procedure, which contravenes Article 13, Title VIII, of the Constitution that prescribes that the Court
Supreme will dictate rules concerning writs of allegations, practice and uniform procedure for all courts of
the same category.

Article 20 of Law No. 103 reads as follows: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"ART 20. Regulations of the Tribunal - The Industrial Relations Tribunal shall promulgate its rules of
procedure and shall have the other attributions that generally correspond to a court of justice:
Understanding, however, That at the hearing, investigation and resolution of any question or conflict, and
in the exercise of any of its duties and powers under this Act, the Court shall act in accordance with
justice and equity and the substantive merits of the case, without consideration of legal technicalities or
formalities, and he will not be subject to any rules, legal test techniques, but will form judgment in the way
he believes fair and just. " cralaw virtua1aw library

A simple reading of that article shows that the law has not empowered the Industrial Relations Tribunal to
investigate and resolve issues and conflicts between workers and employers, and tenants and owners, in
an arbitrary and capricious manner without submitting to a standard of conduct . The article clearly states
that the rules of procedure adopted, to which the court must adjust, must be inspired by justice and
fairness, and prescribes that the criterion that is formed should be based on the substantial merits of the
case without consideration of the technicalities or legal forms. Law No. 103 that creates a special tribunal
called the Industrial Relations Tribunal with power to issue its own regulations and to resolve and decide
agrarian and industrial disputes in accordance with the dictates of justice and equity, can not be
challenged on the grounds that it authorizes the deprivation of liberty and property without due process of
law; nor does it conflict with the precept of Article 13, Title VIII, of the Constitution because the Industrial
Relations Tribunal is not of the same category as municipal courts, courts of peace and courts of first
instance for which the regulations of the courts have been issued. courts by the Supreme Court.

In relation to the validity and constitutionality of Law No. 103 and its amendments, we insert below the
concurring opinion of Judge Laurel in the matter of Ang Tibay, supra, whose observations will serve to
reinforce the sitting proposition that the aforementioned law and its amendments is valid and does not
violate the Constitution.

"It should be observed at the outset that our Constitution was adopted in the midst of surging unrest and
dissatisfaction resulting from economic and social distress which was threatening the stability of
governments of the world over. of our Constitution boldly met the problems and difficulties which faced
them and endeavored to crystalize, with more or less fidelity, the political, social and economic
propositions of their age, and this they did, with the consciousness that the political and philosophical
aphorism of their generation will, in the language of a great jurist, will be discarded by the next and
perhaps entirely discarded by the third. (Chief Justice Winslow in Gorgnis v. Falk Co., 147 WiS., 327; 133
NW, 209.) Embodying the spirit of the present epoch, general provisions were inserted in the Constitution
which are intended to bring about the needed social and economic equilibrium between components of
society through the application of what may be termed as the justitia communis advocated by Grotius and
Leibnits many years ago to be secured through the counterbalancing of economic and social forces and
opportunities which should be regulated, if not controlled, by the State or placed, as it was, in custody
societatis.'The promotion of social justice to secure the well-being and economic security of all people It
was thus inserted as a vital principle in our Constitution. (Sec. 5, Art. II, Constitution.) And in order that
this declaration of principle may not have an empty medley of words, the Constitution in various sections
have provided the means towards its realization. For instance, section 6 of Article XIII declare that the
State will be protection to labor, especially to working women and minors, and shall regulate the relations
between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and in agriculture. The same
section also states that 'the State may provide for compulsory arbitration.' In extraordinary cases
mentioned in section 16, Article VI, of the Constitution, the President of the Philippines may be authorized
by law, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as the National Assembly prescribes, to
'promulgate rules and regulations to carry out a declared national policy. ' Albeit, almost at the same time
the Congress of the United States approved the National Labor Regulations Act (49 Stat., 449) on July 5,
1935, as known as the Wagner Act, We were in the Philippines headway towards the adoption of our
fundamental law, pursuant to the congressional authority given in the Tydings-McDuffie Independence
Act, approved March 24, 1934. In our Bill of Rights we now find the following provision 'The right to form
associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be abridged. ' (Par 6, section 1,
article III, Constitution.) What was an agitation in the United States which brought about the
recommendation by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by an Act of Congress in 1912 for
the adoption of a Labor Bill of Rights as an amendment to the United States Constitution, in our case,
virtually accepted principle, which may be expanded and vitalized by legislation to keep pace with the
development of time and circumstances. congressional authority given in the Tydings-McDuffie
Independence Act, approved March 24, 1934. In our Bill of Rights we now find the following provision
'The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be abridged.' (Par
6, section 1, article III, Constitution.) What was an agitation in the United States which brought about the
recommendation by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by an Act of Congress in 1912 for
the adoption of a Labor Bill of Rights as an amendment to the United States Constitution, in our case,
virtually accepted principle, which may be expanded and vitalized by legislation to keep pace with the
development of time and circumstances. congressional authority given in the Tydings-McDuffie
Independence Act, approved March 24, 1934. In our Bill of Rights we now find the following provision
'The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be abridged.' (Par
6, section 1, article III, Constitution.) What was an agitation in the United States which brought about the
recommendation by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by an Act of Congress in 1912 for
the adoption of a Labor Bill of Rights as an amendment to the United States Constitution, in our case,
virtually accepted principle, which may be expanded and vitalized by legislation to keep pace with the
development of time and circumstances. In our Bill of Rights we now find the following provision 'The right
to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be abridged.' (Par 6,
section 1, article III, Constitution.) What was an agitation in the United States which brought about the
recommendation by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by an Act of Congress in 1912 for
the adoption of a Labor Bill of Rights as an amendment to the United States Constitution, in our case,
virtually accepted principle, which may be expanded and vitalized by legislation to keep pace with the
development of time and circumstances. In our Bill of Rights we now find the following provision 'The right
to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be abridged.' (Par 6,
section 1, article III, Constitution.) What was an agitation in the United States which brought about the
recommendation by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by an Act of Congress in 1912 for
the adoption of a Labor Bill of Rights as an amendment to the United States Constitution, in our case,
virtually accepted principle, which may be expanded and vitalized by legislation to keep pace with the
development of time and circumstances.

'An Act to define and regulate legitimate labor organizations.' (As to this last act, vide 'findings and policy,'
preamble [sec.1] of the Wagner Act [49 Sta., 449]).

"Commonwealth Act No. 103, .approved October 29, 1936, was originally Bill No. 700 of the National
Assembly. More light is shed by the explanatory statement of the Bill than by what transpired in the
course of the deliberation of the measure in the legislative chamber.'The present bill, 'thus begins the
explanatory statement of Bill No. 700,' creates an Industrial Relations Board ... and provides for
compulsory arbitration ... in accordance with Article 6, Title XIII. of the Constitution, which provides that
'The State may establish compulsory arbitration. " "Incorporating the conclusion reached by a committee
appointed, a year or so before it was observed that 'under the current legislation'" - evidently referring to
Act No. 4055 - 'there is no adequate instrument to prevent strikes. The Department of Labor merely
performs the role of peacemaker between the parties to the dispute and its decisions are not binding on
employers or workers. The people have reached a degree of industrial development, which makes it
imperative that government intervention in these conflicts be more effective. . . ' The creation of a Court of
Industrial Relations was thus proposed, endowed "not only of the power to arbitrate but also of the duty to
investigate, decide, and make recommendations on the issues in conflict and the problems that affect
Capital and Labor in Industry. and Agriculture under the direction of the President of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines or at the request of the Secretary of Labor. that makes it imperative that government
intervention in these conflicts be more effective. . . ' The creation of a Court of Industrial Relations was
thus proposed, endowed "not only of the power to arbitrate but also of the duty to investigate, decide, and
make recommendations on the issues in conflict and the problems that affect Capital and Labor in
Industry. and Agriculture under the direction of the President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines or
at the request of the Secretary of Labor. that makes it imperative that government intervention in these
conflicts be more effective. . . ' The creation of a Court of Industrial Relations was thus proposed,
endowed "not only of the power to arbitrate but also of the duty to investigate, decide, and make
recommendations on the issues in conflict and the problems that affect Capital and Labor in Industry. and
Agriculture under the direction of the President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines or at the request
of the Secretary of Labor.

xxx

In the United States labor legislation has undergone a long process of development too long to narrate
here, culminating in the enactments of what was commonly known as the Clayton Act, the Norris-La
Guardia Act, and finally, the Wagner Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Wagner Act
created the National Labor Relations Board as an instrumentality of the Federal Government in the
settlement of labor disputes, which device is aimed at the avoidance of unnecessary friction between
labor and capital and the establishment of industrial peace. Scrutiny of legislation in that country and of
pronouncements made by its Supreme Court reveals a continuous renovation and change made
necessary by the impact of changing needs and economic pressure brought about by the irrisistible
momentum of new social and economic forces developed there. In the light of changes that have
occurred, it is doubted if the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in 1905 (Lochner v. New York,
198, US, 45) or in 1908 (Adair v. US, 52 Law ed. 430, 208 US, 161, and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US, 1) -
cases which are relied upon by the petitioner in its printed memorandum - still retain their virtuality at the
present time. In the Philippines, social legislation has had a similar development, although of course to a
much smaller degree and of different adaptation giving rise to several attempts at meeting and solving our
peculiar social and economic problems. (See Commonwealth Acts Nos. 37, 104, 139, 211, Presidential
Message to the National Assembly, September 2, 1936, Executive Order No. 49, S. 1936). The system of
voluntary arbitration devised by Act No. 4055 of the defunct Philippine Legislature has apparently been
abandoned by the enactment of the aforementioned Commonwealth Acts Nos. 103 and 213. In the midst
of changes that have taken place, it may have been doubted if the pronouncement made by this court in
the case of People v. Pomar (46 Phil., 440) - also relied upon by the petitioner in its printed memorandum
- still retains its virtuality as a living principle. The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given to the
assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public
interests. " it may likewise be doubted if the pronouncement made by this court in the case of People
v. Pomar (46 Phil., 440) - also relied upon by the petitioner in its printed memorandum - still retains its
virtuality as a living principle. The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given to the assumption by the
government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interests. " it may
likewise be doubted if the pronouncement made by this court in the case of People v. Pomar (46 Phil.,
440) - also relied upon by the petitioner in its printed memorandum - still retains its virtuality as a living
principle. The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given to the assumption by the government of the
right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interests. "cralaw virtua1aw library

xxx
"In Commonwealth Act No. 103, and by it, our Government no longer performs the role of a mere
mediator or intervenor but that of the supreme arbiter." cralaw virtua1aw library

In its following error statement the appellant alleges that the conduct of the investigator, the investigation
that he practiced and the manner in which the Industrial Relations Tribunal heard the matter deprived him
of an impartial and fair hearing, and constitute deprivation of his property without due process. Of law. In
order to demonstrate the lack of foundation of the error signal, we believe it is sufficient to reproduce
below the form in which the investigation was conducted by the commissioner appointed by the Industrial
Relations Tribunal and the manner in which the hearing was held by said tribunal, as set forth in the order
of May 6, 1939.

"Hearing was held on April 3, 1939, where witnesses for both the petitioners and the respondent testified.
To supplement the facts brought to the hearing, the Court ordered one of its Special Agents to proceed to
the premises of the mines to conduct a further investigation. " cralaw virtua1aw library

The commissioner was appointed by the Industrial Relations Tribunal in the exercise of his power
conferred by Article 10 of Commonwealth Law No. 103 and in the inspection and hearings held by the
commissioner and the court, respectively, the parties were duly represented. , they were heard and
presented the evidence they had available and thought it convenient to offer. Such inspections and
hearings had the character of an impartial and fair judicial hearing and constitute the due process of law
guaranteed by the Constitution.

The appellant also maintains that the order of May 6, 1939 is arbitrary because there is no substantial or
competent evidence to support it. On this point, the factual conclusions that the Industrial Relations Court
has established demonstrate that the challenged order is sustained by the result of the investigation
carried out by the commissioner and the evidence that the parties presented directly before the Court. In
these conclusions, all the evidence presented by the parties has been considered and analyzed by the
Industrial Relations Tribunal and it is inevitable that the order is not arbitrary and is justified and supported
by the proven facts.

The last error statement is related to the part of the order of May 6, 1939 that provides that the appellant
pay to the 55 replaced workers the wages they stopped receiving during their separation from the
service. The appellant maintains that this part of the order amounts to a judgment for damages that the
Industrial Relations Tribunal can not pronounce because it lacks jurisdiction. The claim is not
meritorious. The Industrial Relations Tribunal, as has already been said, is a special court and as such
has the power to order that the appellant pay the wages of its employees and workers who have been
replaced. Articles 1 and 4 of Law No. 103 of the Commonwealth, as amended by the first article 1 of Law
No. 254,

The writ of certiorari is denied and the order of May 6, 1939 and the resolution of August 17 of the same
year, with the costs to the appellant, are confirmed. This is how it is ordered.

Avanceña, Diaz, Laurel, and Moran, MM., Are satisfied.