Facts: The Kaisahan ng Manggagawa ng Kahoy sa Pilipinas declared a strike against Gotamco Saw Mill because thelatter did not accede to the former¶s reuest of a salary increase! "hile the case was being heard by the #ourt of $ndustrial %elations& the parties reached a temporary wage arrangement and the workers were ordered to go back to work while the saw mill was ordered to increase the salaries of the workers by P'!((& let them take home small piecesof lumber to be utili)ed as firewood& and was en*oined from laying+off& suspending& or dismissing any laboreraffiliated with the petitioning union! #on,ersely& the workers were en*oined from staging walk+ outs or strikes duringthe pendency of the hearing!Gotamco Saw Mill subseuently filed an urgent motion asking that the petitioning union be held in contemptof court for ha,ing staged a strike during the pendency of the main case& for picketing on the premises of the saw mill&and for gra,e threats which pre,ented the remaining laborers from working! The union alleged that one of itsrepresentati,es conferred with the management of the saw mill& but instead of entertaining their grie,ances& the saw mill ordered the stoppage of the work and employed four new #hinese laborers without e-press authority of the courtand in ,iolation of Section ./ of #ommonwealth 0ct 1o! .(2! The #$% ruled that there was a ,iolation of the pre,iousorder of the #$% by the union& which warranted the commencement of contempt proceedings and that the saw milldid not ,iolate Section ./ of #0 .(2! $ssue: "31 Section ./ of #0 .(2 is unconstitutional for being in ,iolation of the organic proscription of in,oluntary ser,itude! %uling: 14! Section ./ of o f #0 .(2 does not offend against the constitutional inhibition proscribing in,oluntary in,oluntar y ser,itude! The pro,isions of #0 .(2 were inspired by the constitutional in*unction making it the concern of the Stateto promote social *ustice to insure the well+being and economic security of all the people! $n order to attain this ob*ect&Section ./ was promulgated which grants to labor what it grants to capital and denies to labor what it denies tocapital! 0mong other things& Section ./ lays down the 5implied condition that when any dispute between theemployer or landlord and the employee& tenant or laborer has been submitted to the #$% for settlement or arbitration&pursuant to the pro,isions of the 0ct& and pending award or decision by it& the employee& tenant or laborer shall notstrike or walk out of his employment when so *oined by the court after hearing and when public
interest so reuires&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 reuires or when the dispute cannot& in its opinion& be promptly decided orsettled!6 Thus& the ,oluntariness of the employee¶s entering into such a contract of employment7he has a free choice between entering into it or not7with such an implied condition& negati,es the possibility of in,oluntary ser,itudeensuing! $ssue: "31 the pre,ious order of the #$%& which ordered the union laborers to go back to work& is unconstitutionalfor being in ,iolation of the organic proscription of in,oluntary ser,itude! %uling: 14! The order of the court was for the striking workers to return to their work! That order was made afterhearing& and Section ./ of #0 .(2 authori)es such order when the dispute cannot in its opinion be promptly decidedor settled! The ,ery impossibility of prompt decision or settlement of the dispute confers upon the #$% the power toissue the order for the reason that the public has an interest in pre,enting undue stoppage or paraly)ation of the wheels of industry!
Se,eral laws promulgated which apparently infringe the human rights of indi,iduals were 5sub*ected toregulation by the State basically in the e-ercise of its paramount police power!6
From 8ustice Perfecto¶s concurring and dissenting opinion: $f the laborers should feel that they arecompelled against their will to perform something which is repugnant to their conscience or dignity& they need not resort to any court action to seek *udicial settlement of the contro,ersy& as they can resign fromtheir work and there is no power that can compel them to continue therein!
