G.R. No. L-1668; March 29, 1948
PHILIPPINE REFINING COMPANY WORKERS’ UNION (CLO), petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., respondent.

FACTS

The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), in an order dated September 26, 1946, directed striking laborers of the Philippine Refining Company to return to work and enjoined them from staging any strike or walkout without the court’s authority pending final determination of the labor dispute. The CIR issued this order after a series of conferences with both parties, finding it necessary for public interest and because the case could not be promptly decided. On April 30, 1947, the union staged a strike in violation of this order. The CIR, in an order dated July 24, 1947, declared the strike illegal and contemptuous, authorizing the company to hire new laborers, and initiated contempt proceedings. The union’s motions for reconsideration were denied.

ISSUE

Whether the CIR’s order enjoining the strike and ordering the return to work, issued under Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , is valid and constitutional.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the CIR’s orders. The power of the CIR under Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 to enjoin a strike and order striking workers to return to work, after hearing and when public interest requires or when the dispute cannot be promptly decided, is constitutional and essential for preventing undue stoppage of industry. The order was issued after a hearing where the CIR found that the dispute could not be promptly decided, thus serving public interest. The Court rejected the union’s arguments that the order constituted involuntary servitude or violated due process, noting that by seeking remedy under the law, the workers voluntarily subjected themselves to the court’s reasonable conditions to effectively settle the labor controversy. The ruling is consistent with the Court’s prior decision in *Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas vs. Gotamco Saw Mill* (G.R. No. L-1573).

AI Generated by Armztrong.