i. Abundo, Rio Jamyr A.

ii. GR No. L-46892

ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING COMPANY, appellant,
v.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, and NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
INC., Appellee
June 28, 1940
iii. Issue
 Whether the creation of the Industrial Relations Court by virtue of Article 4 of
the Commonwealth Law No. 103 is unconstitutional considering the
contention of the appellant that since she has been subjected to an arbitrary
procedure different from that applied to other litigants in the courts of the
Philippines, she has been denied due process of law and the principle of equal
protection before laws
iv. Appellant’s Argument
A. 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 by it the National Assembly abdicated its legislative power,
violating the doctrine on the delegation of powers; 
- (3) because the judicial powers that the law confers on 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 "shall adopt its procedural regulations." 
B. The appellant emphasizes what was resolved in the case of Schechter
v. United States (1935) in which the Supreme Court of the United States
declared the National Recovery Act unconstitutional;
C. 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 law process; and that Article 20, at least, suffers from
this fundamental defect because it confers on the Industrial Relations Tribunal
the power to dictate its own rules of procedure, which contravenes Article 13,
Title VIII, of the Constitution that prescribes that the Tribunal The Supreme
Court will dictate rules concerning the writings of allegations, uniform
practice and procedure for all courts of the same category.
D. the appellant alleges that the conduct of the investigator, the investigation that
he carried out, and the manner in which the Industrial Relations Court heard
the matter deprived him of a partial and fair hearing and constituted
deprivation of his property without due process of law.
E. The appellant maintains that this part (payment of wages to the 55 workers) of
the order amounts to a judgment for damages that the Industrial Relations
Tribunal cannot pronounce because it lacks jurisdiction.
v. Respondent’s Argument
A. Commonwealth Law No. 103, which, as its title indicates, provides for the
protection of the worker, creating an Industrial Relations Court empowered to set
a minimum wage for workers and the maximum rent to be paid by tenants; To
enforce mandatory arbitration between employers or owners and employees or
tenants, respectively, and prescribes penalties for the violation of its decrees, it
has been promulgated by the National Assembly by virtue of the precepts
contained in Article 5, Title II; Article 6, Title XIII; and Articles 1 and 2, Title
VIII, of the Philippine Constitution;
B. There is, however, a marked difference between that matter and the one
considered because the National Recovery Act instead of creating a court of law,
created together with legislative powers and I authorize the President of the
United States to promulgate codes that prescribe the rules of precedence in order
to carry out the purposes of the law.
C. A simple reading of Article 20 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 specific standard of conduct. . The
article clearly establishes that the rules of procedure that it adopts, to which the
court must comply, must be inspected in justice and equity, and prescribes that the
criterion that is formed must be based on the substantial merits of the case without
regard to the technicalities or legal formalities;
D. To demonstrate the lack of foundation of the error signaling, we believe it is
sufficient to reproduce below the way in which the investigation was carried out
by the commissioner appointed by the Court of Industrial Relations and the way
in which the hearing was held by said court, as set out in the order of the May 6,
1939.
E. The claim is not meritorious. The Industrial Relations Court, as has already been
said, is a special court and as a whole has the power to order the appellant to pay
the wages of its employees and workers who have been replaced.
vi. Instruction Learned/ Decision of the Court

vii. Ratio
 The National Assembly promulgated Law No. 103 of the Commonwealth that
creates the Court of Industrial Relations, which is a special court with judicial
powers (Pambusco Employees Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al.,
GR No. 46727; Ang Tibay et al. Vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al., GR
No. 46496, concurring opinion of Judge Jose P. Laurel). 
 Article 1 of Commonwealth Law No. 103 provides that the Industrial
Relations Court shall exercise jurisdiction to consider, investigate, decide and
settle any question, matter, conflict or dispute that affects or arises between
employers and employees or workers, and between owners and tenants or
sharecroppers, and to regulate the relationships between them, in accordance
with and subject to the provisions of the law.
 The Industrial Relations Court, as has already been said, is a special court and
as a whole has the power to order the appellant to pay the wages of its
employees and workers who have been replaced.