Antamok Goldfields Mining v.

Court of Industrial Relations

FACTS

On December 12, 1938, the Union, representing Antamoks workers

and employees who were members, addressed a letter to Antamok
requesting 21 claims in favor of their members.
o Antamoks officials informed the workers in a meeting on
January 2, 1939 that some claims were been accepted and
had already been put into practice, others would be
considered, and the rest were rejected for being
unreasonable.
o On the night of the same day, Antamoks workers went on
strike and abandoned their work and nagsumbong si Antamok
kay DoL.
Dep. of Labor officials convened Antamoks officials, the strikers
representative, and the head of the Baguio Federation of Labor.
They agreed on an amicable settlement to end the strike under the
conditions that:
o All laborers will be readmitted PROVIDED, that all laborers
who are no longer needed will be given not less than 15 days
employment from the date of this settlement or resumption
of work, and soon as the services of men are needed,
[Antamok] 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.
The agreement was signed by the parties on January 4, 1939, but
the workers did not appear until 9:00 am on January 6.
o Antamoks management did not, however, allow any worker to
enter the underground section known as "830 level" because
of the fact that the air had been vitiated by the strike and it
was necessary to renew it with pure air to avoid personal
misfortune.
o This precaution was taken by the workers as Antamoks
refusal to have them work again (NAGTAMPO), so they went
on strike again. The workers who worked in the mine called
"680 division," a separate mine located 3 kilometers from the
factory, joined the strikers sympathetically.
o Again the Department of Labor intervened and, through
mediation, the workers returned to work on the night of
January 6, 1939, when mine work resumed gradually.
On January 9, 1939 the Department of Labor endorsed the dispute
to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) in accordance with Article
4 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 103.
 On March 31, 1939, with most of the Unions 21 claims still
pending, the Union filed a motion before the CIR alleging that (I put
in parentheses na the CIRs holding after the hearing para one
reference point na lang):
1. The foreman A. Haber and 9 other workers had been
suspended indefinitely for their continued laziness (laziness
not established, real motive: completion of outside work [see
number 2] even if CIR directed them to be reinstted after
such completion)
2. These workers had previously been transferred to outside
work in order to provide Antamok with an excuse to separate
them later from service
3. Another group of about 30 workers were dismissed for
refusing to point out those responsible for the ill-treatment of
foreman Juan Moldero (lacks justification, dismissed men
werent the aggressors and they were busy with their work
and both the distance and the topographical situation
precluded their hearing or seeing clearly what transpired
above them in the place where Moldero was assaulted) and
4. The suspensions and separations were acts of revenge and
discriminatory for the workers.
Thus, the Union requested that Antamoks officials responsible for
such acts be punished for contempt and that Antamok be forced to
replace the workers in their primitive works within the mines and
to pay their wages corresponding to the period in which they were
separated from the service.
After a hearing, CIR declared the following facts proven:
o "1. The discharges and indefinite suspensionswere made by
[Antamok] without first securing the consent of the [CIR] in
violation of [its] orderof January 23, 1939."
o "2. The discharges and indefinite suspensions were made by
[Antamok] without just cause."
The CIR observed:
o Among those transferred to outside work were leaders of the
movement of the laborers for higher pay and better working
conditions.
The temporary transfer of these men to 'outside' work
was authorized by the Court in said order on the
strength of the assurance 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 outside was completed the laborers should be
immediately returned to their respective work inside
the mines.
 BUT Antamok subsequently hired ~400 non union
workers so obviously, work existed and exists for the
men inside the tunnels and their transfers were made
to provide an opportunity to dispense with their
services as soon as the work outside is completed.
The acts in the mind of the [CIR] are calculated to have
two effects. They will not only immediately affect the
discharged laborers but would also discourage other
laborers from joining or remaining members of the
union."
The CIR ordered Antamok to and give backpay.
The CIR denied Antamoks MR.
Antamok: CA 103, as amended by Acts Nos. 254 and 355, is
unconstitutional because it violates the principle of separation of
powers and delegation of powers the judicial powers conferred are
arbitrary and unreasonable and allow the deprivation of freedom
and property without due process of law and it infringes upon
Section 13 of Article VIII of the [1935] Constitution, obliging the CIR
to observe the general rules of procedure applicable to the courts
of justice.

ISSUES + RULING
Does CA 103 violate the principle of separation of powers and the
doctrine on delegation of powers? NO.
CA 103 gives the CIR full discretion to resolve and decide agrarian
and industrial disputes in the manner it believes to be fair and
equitable, regardless of technicalities or legal forms (Article 20),
and the power thus granted is judicial rather than legislative.
o So it does not violate the principle of separation of powers,
the prohibition on delegation of legislative powers or equal
protection before the law.
o CA 103, which provides for the protection of the worker by
creating a CIR empowered to:
Fix a minimum wage for the workers and the maximum
rent to be paid by the tenants
Enforce compulsory arbitration between employers or
owners and employees or tenants, respectively,
o And prescribes penalties for breach of its decrees, has been
promulgated by the National Assembly pursuant to the
precepts contained in the 1935 Constitution
In compliance with these precepts, the National
Assembly promulgated CA103 creating the CIR which is
a special court with judicial powers
Are the legal powers CA 103 grants to the CIR so arbitrary and
unreasonable that they allow deprivation of liberty and property without
due process of law violates the Constitution which prescribes that the
Supreme Court shall issue rules and procedure for all courts of the same
category? NO.
Article 20 (Note: This provision is similar to Article 227 [221] of the
Labor Code re: Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations
Commission) has not empowered the CIR to investigate and resolve
questions and disputes between workers and employers and
tenants and owners in an arbitrary and capricious manner without
being subject to a specific rule of conduct.
o Article 20 clearly stipulates that the rules of procedure
which it adopts, to which the court must conform, must be
based on justice and equity, and prescribes that the criterion
which must be formed must be based on the substantial
merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal
forms.
o CA 103 cannot be challenged on the ground that authorizes
the deprivation of liberty and property without due process of
law nor does it conflict with the precept of Section 13, Article
VIII, of the Constitution because the CIR is not of the same
category as the municipal courts, courts of justice and
courts of first instance for which the regulations of the
Courts by the Supreme Court [apply].
Re hearing: the parties were duly represented, were heard and
presented the evidence that they had available and thought it
convenient to offer. Such inspection and hearings had the
character of an impartial and fair judicial hearing and constitute
the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution.