1. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; CONVERSION OF LABORERS RECEIVING MONTHLY SALARIES INTO DAILY WAGERS. — The Court of Industrial Relations, in promulgating its order of February 6, 1940, did nothing more than to give effect to its previous order of July 10, 1939, and its resolution in banc of July 31, 1939, which order and resolution appear to have been affirmed in the decision of this court in case G.R. No. 46843, entitled "Central Azucarera de Tarlac, Petitioner, v. Court of Industrial Relations and Philippine Labor Union, Respondents," promulgated December 15, 1939. Going to the root of the controversy, the Court of Industrial Relations, in prohibiting the reduction of the workings days of employees and laborers paid on the monthly basis, did not overlook the interest of the petitioner company, and reached the conclusion that the resulting outlay will not adversely affect the reasonable and fair return on its investment. It appears, furthermore, that before the petitioner converted its laborers receiving monthly salaries into daily wagers on June 15, 1939, these laborers were already working 16 days a month during the off-season but received their full monthly salary. After June 15, 1939, the laborers were converted into daily wagers in violation of the aforementioned order of the Court of Industrial Relations of March 14, 1939, limiting the reduction of working days to laborers paid on the daily basis. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be said that the Court of Industrial Relations in decreeing the payment of wages which the laborers concerned lost because of their conversion into daily wagers abused its discretion or acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

2. COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 103, AS AMENDED BY COMMONWEALTH ACTS NOS. 254 AND 355; CONSTITUTIONALITY. — The doctrine in Antamok Goldfields Mining Company v. Court of Industrial Relations (G.R. No. 46892), is reiterated, to the effect that Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended, is constitutional.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated February 6, 1940, and a resolution of the same court dated February 19,1940, denying the motion for reconsideration of the said order of February 6, 1940.

The dispositive part of the order complained of reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Por todo lo expuesto, se ordena a la compania recurrida pague a los doce (12) empleados mencionados en la mocion de la recurrente de enero 15, 1940, la diferencia de su salario desde el 15 de junio de 1939 al 1.