Is the Labor Code biased toward workers?

Does the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. [PD] 442) have bias in favor of labor (workers) and one-sided against capital (employers)? Below is Azucena's (2013) answer in his 2013 book on labor standards (pg. 19).
The Labor Code is not one-sided. It is not meant to protect a sector to oppress another. All throughout the Code, the rights and responsibilities not only of employees but also of employers are recognized. Indeed, the Labor Code has to protect the interests of both employees and employers, for if it does not, it would be unconstitutional. The very first article of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights refers to all persons — rich or poor, aliens or citizens, artificial or natural — when it states: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." It is unjustified to view the Labor Code as a law of and for workers only, if this term refers only to hired workers.
In fact, the New Civil Code of the Philippines supports the above contention by Azucena (2013). It says: "Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public."

However, with all due respect to the expertise of that great author, there is a view that, even if the Labor Code is one-sided and biased in favor of labor (workers), it would still be valid, not unconstitutional, because it is a piece of social legislation enacted by Congress in pursuance of police power. This view maintains that the police power of the State justifies the favoritism that labor laws have for workers because they give more laws to those who have less in life. This is an exercise of police power to further social justice.

In the case of Garcia v. PAL, it was held: "The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment espoused by Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. in his Separate Opinion. The constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise "unjust" situation as a condition affording full protection to labor." (G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009) Here, the employer was asking the worker to reimburse what was received via payroll reinstatement because the illegal dismissal order of the Labor Arbiter was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The High Court said there is no need to reimburse. Rejecting the argument based on unjust enrichment, the Court, in effect, said that this "unfairness" or "unjust situation" is what the Constitution wants in order to afford full protection to labor.

Azucena (2013) continues:
"Labor" in "Labor Code" is better viewed in its broad ordinary sense as work and work relationship, referring to any economically productive application of physical, mental and material resources. In this sense, the term "labor" simply means work and does not exclude the work of business owners and managers. Labor Code articles repeatedly show the interplay of owners of mental, physical and material resources. Their interdependence permeates the Code.
"Economic development is not a mechanical process; it is not a simple adding up of assorted factors. Ultimately, it is a human enterprise. And like all human enterprises, its outcome will depend finally on the skill, quality, and attitudes of the men who undertake it… There must be what economists call entrepreneurs: men who possess the drive, ambition, foresight, and imagination to break through traditional barriers, overcome social inertia, and transform theory into practice… Capital accumulation is indispensable for expanding production and providing employment for the growing labor force." (Richard T. Gill, Economic Development, [Prentice-Hall, 1963], pp. 12 and 19). Conformably, Sharp, et al., in their very successful book, affirm that "all goods and services that make up an economy’s real GDP are produced from labor and capital resources. Without labor and capital, production could not take place." (Ansel M. Sharp, Charles A. Register, and Paul W. Grimes, Economics of Social Issues [McGraw-Hill, 2006, 17th Edition], p. 359)