GR No.

L-1573, March 29, 1948

KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA PILIPINAS, petitioner-
appellant, vs. GOTAMCO SAW MILL, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
The Kaisahan ng Manggagawa ng Kahoy sa Pilipinas declared a strike against Gotamco Saw
Mill because the latter 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
pieces of lumber to be utilized as firewood, and was enjoined from laying off, suspending, or
dismissing any laborer affiliated with the petitioning union. Conversely, the workers were
enjoined from staging walk-outs or strikes during the pendency of the hearing.
Gotamco Saw Mill subsequently filed an urgent motion asking that the petitioning union beheld
in contempt of 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 its representatives 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 court and in violation of Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103.
The CIR ruled that there was a violation of the previous order of the CIR by the union, which
warranted the commencement of contempt proceedings and that the saw mill did not Violate
Section 19 of CA 103.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 19 of CA 103 is unconstitutional?
HELD:
No, Section 19 of CA 103 is constitutional.
It does not offend against the constitutional inhibition prescribing involuntary servitude. An
employee entering into a contract of employment said law went into effect, voluntarily accepts,
among other conditions, those prescribed in said section 19, among which is the “implied
condition that when any dispute between the employer or landlord and the employee, tenant or
laborer has been submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations for settlement or arbitration,
pursuant to the provisions of this Act, and pending award or decision by it, the employee, tenant
or laborer shall not strike 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 or
settled.”