#1 Antamok vs CIR,

End Goal-The promotion of social justice which is ‘to insure the well-being and economic security of all
the people'.

Issue:

Did the CIR acted outside its jurisdiction and against the 1935 Constitution when it ordered the
reinstatement and payment of backwages to the affected laborers of Antamok Mining?

Is CA 103, the law which created the CIR, unconstitutional on the following grounds 1) violation of
the separation of powers; 2) it’s judicial powers are unreasonable and arbitrary for it allows the deprivation
of freedom and property without due process of law ; 3) that even if the law is constitutional, Article 20 of
CA 103, which requires the CIR to adopt its procedural regulations, must be declared null and void since it
infringes Section 13, Art. VIII of the 1935 Constitution which prescribes that the Supreme Court shall issue
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure for all courts of the same category.

Ruling:

1st issue. No.

The exercise of judgment of the employer in selecting men he is to employ 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.

2nd issue. CA 103 which created the Court of Industrial Relations is constitutional. The CIR is a
special court with judicial powers. The CIR is empowered 1) to set a minimum wages for laborers and
maximum rentals to be paid by tenants, 2) to enforce compulsory arbitration between employers or owners
and employees or tenants, and 3)prescribes penalties for the infractions of its decrees

It does not violate the separation of powers principle nor is it violative of the principle of equal
protection before the law. The power is judicial rather than legislative. CA 103 gives 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. The distinction between the delegation of power to make the law and conferring
an authority or discretion as to its execution is that the first cannot be done and to the latter no valid objection
can be made.

Article 20 clearly establishes that the rules of procedure adopted, to which the court must adjust,
must be insurmountable in 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.

The CIR, with the power to issue its own regulations and to resolve and decide agrarian and
industrial disputes in accordance with the dictates of justice and equity, cannot be challenged on the
grounds that it increases 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 by the Supreme Court.

CA 103 was enacted in pursuance of what appears to be deliberate embodiment of a new social
policy, founded on the conception of a society integrated not by independent individuals dealing at arms'
length, but by interdependent members of a consolidated whole whose interests must be protected against
mutual aggression and warfare among and between divers and diverse units which are impelled by counter
vailing and opposite individual and group interests, and this is particularly true in the relationship between
labor and capital.

CA 103 confer faculty and jurisdiction to the Industrial Relations tribunal to hear, resolve and decide all
issues, disputes and disputes between employers and workers and landlords, and wages of the replaced
workers, during the time they were separated from the service, they were included in the disputes and
disputes submitted to the Department of Labor and certified by the latter to the Industrial Relations Tribunal.
#2. Manila Diamond Hotel vs CA

Issue:

Did the CA erred in denying the union’s petition when it affirmed the Secretary of Labor’s challenged
order of payroll reinstatement being a mere error of judgment and not with grave abuse of discretion since
such an order is not prohibited by law, but may be called for in certain circumstance?

Ruling:

Yes. It is evident that the Secretary’s subsequent order for mere payroll reinstatement constitutes
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Indeed, this Court has always
recognized the great breadth of discretion by the Secretary once he assumes jurisdiction over a labor
dispute. However, payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement is a departure from the rule in these
cases and there must be showing of special circumstances rendering actual reinstatement impracticable

The jurisprudence relied upon which allowed payroll reinstatement as an alternative remedy is no
on all fours with this case. There is no showing from the facts that a payroll reinstatement may be had as
an alternative remedy.

A strained relationship between the striking employees and management is no reason for payroll
reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement. Petitioner correctly points out that labor disputes naturally
involve strained relations between labor and management, and that in most strikes, the relations between
the strikers and the non-strikers will similarly be tense. Bitter labor disputes always leave an aftermath of
strong emotions and unpleasant situations. Nevertheless, the government must still perform its function
and apply the law, especially if, as in this case, national interest is involved.

As a general rule, the State encourages an environment wherein employers and employees
themselves must deal with their problems in a manner that mutually suits them best. This is the basic
policy embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution and Article 211 of the Labor Code. A
voluntary, instead of compulsory, mode of dispute settlement is the general rule.

Article 263g is viewed as an exercise of the police power of the State. A prolonged strike or lockout
can be inimical to the national economy and, therefore, the situation is imbued with public necessity and
involves the right of the State and the public to self-protection.

Under Article 263(g), all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit
all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The law uses the
precise phrase of ‘under the same terms and conditions’, revealing that it contemplates only actual
reinstatement. This is in keeping with the rationale that any work stoppage or slowdown in that particular
industry can be inimical to the national economy.

It is clear that Article 263(g) was not written to protect labor from the excesses of management, nor
was it written to ease management from expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or
slowdown. It was an error on the part of the Court of Appeals to view the assumption order of the Secretary
as a measure to protect the striking workers from any retaliatory action from the Hotel. This Court reiterates
that this law was written as a means to be used by the State to protect itself from an emergency or crisis. It
is not for labor, nor is it for management.

Art. XIII, Sec.3, Par. 3, The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.