PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION, NICANOR

TOLENTINO, FLORENCIO, PADRIGANO RUFINO, ROXAS MARIANO DE LEON,

ASENCION PACIENTE, BONIFACIO VACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU and RODULFO
MUNSOD, petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents.
G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973

Facts: Petitioners informed the respondent employers of their schedule for a mass demonstration in
protest for the alleged abuses of the Pasig police. Respondent invoke that the demonstration is a violation
of their CBA agreement however petitioners contend it is an exercise of their freedom to
peaceable assembly to seek redress of their grievances against the abusive Pasig police and not a strike
against their employer. Respondent dismissed the petitioners and the court sustained
their demonstration is one of bargaining in bad faith.
Issue: Whether or not there was a restraint in the exercise of the right to peaceable assembly of the
petitioners.
Held: The court held that the primacy of human rights such as freedom of expression, of
peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances over property rights has been sustained. The
obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers of the respondent firm was for their
mutual aid and protection against alleged police abuses, denial of which was interference with or restraint
on the right of the employees to engage in such common action to better shield themselves against such
alleged police indignities. Apart from violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech
and assembly as well as the right to petition for redress of grievances of the employees, the dismissal of
the eight (8) leaders of the workers for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently being absent
from work, constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly
employees.

SIMON, JR. vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994
FACTS:
On July 23, 1990, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order, directing the petitioners "to
desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending the resolution of the
vendors/squatters complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the
CHR.
On September 10, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss questioning CHR's jurisdiction and
supplemental motion to dismiss was filed on September 18, 1990 stating that Commissioners' authority
should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights,
and that "the rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their privilege to
engage in business".
On March 1, 1991, the CHR issued and Order denying petitioners' motion and supplemental motion to
dismiss. And petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied also in an Order, dated April 25, 1991.
The Petitioner filed a a petition for prohibition, praying for a restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Petitioner also prayed to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580,
entitled "Ferno, et.al vs. Quimpo, et.al".
ISSUE:
Is the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power of the CRH?
HELD:
No, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and power of the CHR. Article
XIII, Section 18(1), provides the power and functions of the CHR to "investigate, on its own or on
complaint by any part, all forms of human rights violation, involving civil and political rights".
The "order to desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative power that the it does
not possess. The Constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures and legal
aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection may not be
construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue an restraining order or writ of injunction, for
it were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. Not being a court of justice, the CHR
itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued by the
Judge in any court in which the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC.
The writ prayed for the petition is granted. The CHR is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with
CHR Case No. 90-1580.