subjects from the vicissitudes of at Malacanang in  PBMEO decided to stage political controversy and to protest against a mass demonstration at establish them as legal alleged abuses of the Malacanang in protest principles to be applied by the Pasig police against alleged abuses of courts. (Human rights from Philippine (PBMEO) is a legitimate equality. The liberties of to work on that Management informed one are the liberties of all.  In two separate the Pasig police  The freedom of expression. violating the CBA as union but emphasized  The rights of free expression. of meetings before the  The Company met with assembly. and morning (particularly them that the the liberties of one are not safe the 1st and regular demonstration was an unless the liberties of all are shift workers) will be inalienable right of the protected. are . labor union of the the assaults of opportunism. it will amount to a that it should not unduly free assembly and petition. Co. a labor  Philippine Blooming Mills  The Bill of Rights is designed to Blooming Mills union of employees Employees Organization preserve the ideals of liberty.. Inc.. RECIT-READY FACTS and ISSUE On rights: YES PBMEO v Phil. PBMEO immunities reserved by the acknowledged that confirmed to the sovereign people to protect the the demonstration Company that they were ideas that we abhor or hate was an inalienable holding a demonstration more than the ideas we cherish.  PBMEO. Its decided to stage a employees of Philippine purpose is to withdraw certain mass demonstration Blooming Mills Co. but was given such that involve the Company. also to benefit the majority who those who would fail  The Company refuse to listen. and security against over property rights) Blooming Mills Co. right of the union and it was likewise or not only to protect the however a warning explained that it does not minority who want to talk. the Company the representatives of petition are included among the Management PBMEO. and the right to activity.

as well as supremely  CIR found Petitioners but should work so as not precious in our society. Property guilty of the case. Thru  PBMEO proceeded those who would fail to these freedoms the citizens can with the work for the following participate not merely in the demonstration which morning will be periodic establishment of the led the Company to dismissed as it will government but also in the charge Petitioners in violate the Collective administration of public affairs the CIR for violating Bargaining Agreement as well as in the discipline of RA 875 and the CBA. and it was not a shifts should not be These freedoms are delicate and strike. (CBA). it particularly on the “no thru prescription. and property rights can be lost Moreover. the Bill being filed beyond  PBMEO proceeded with of Rights is a useless attempt to the reglementary the demonstration limit the power of the period.  While the Bill of Rights also defend that it was a  In another meeting. required to participate vulnerable. the valid exercise of their Management reiterated primacy of human rights over freedom of speech that the 1st and regular property rights is recognized. relief from the order. warning was given that man’s enjoyment of his life. A political rights essential to will be dismissed. As a prejudice the company’s not only civil rights but also consequence. they normal operations.  In the hierarchy of civil liberties.  The Company charged the rights of free expression and . by the passage of time. to violate the CBA. filed for a petition for shift workers. amounting to abusive public officers. they human rights are extinguished reconsideration for shall be dismissed. If motion for provision. but human dismissed their lockout-no strike” rights are imprescriptible. the protects property rights. The despite the Company’s government and ceases to be a Petitioners in turn pleas pertaining to the 1st shield against tyranny. strike. Petitioners however illegal strike. If not.

They are not their motion for grave and immediate danger of only civil rights but reconsideration for being a substantive evil which the also political rights filed beyond the State has the right to prevent. Petitioners institutions. and On the other hand. and it mere reasonable relation HELD: was not a strike. namely existence of a people. perpetrating which restricts property rights. as well as filed the Petitioners in the Court of assembly occupy a preferred present appeal in the of Industrial Relations position as they are essential to SC. it was the duty of . of in bad faith. essential to man’s reglementary period as it  The demonstration was purely enjoyment of his life. (CIR) for violating RA the preservation and vitality of 875 and the CBA. the  Petitioners filed a petition assembly and of petition for primacy of human for relief from the order redress of grievances. lost constitutional or valid included among the their status as infringement of human rights immunities reserved employees.  CIR held that Petitioners the law and its object or purpose  The freedom of were guilty of bargaining would suffice to validate a law expression. requires a more stringent by the sovereign  CIR likewise dismissed criterion. As a as the failure to file was matter of fact. between the means employed by YES. was to be filed within 5 and completely an exercise of  While the Bill of days from the receipt of their freedom of expression in Rights also protects the decision general and of their right of property rights. a right to petition are as a consequence. assembly. participation of the 1st contend that: they gave  The superiority of these shift workers was a prior notice. and the unfair labor practice. it was a freedoms over property rights is valid exercise of valid exercise of the underscored by the fact that a constitutional rights? freedom of speech. In our civil and political ISSUE: W/N the defense.

The refusal suffer loss or damage constituted an unconstitutional is a plea for the restraint on their freedom of preservation of their expression. the W/N the participation of the suffer loss or damage because of rights of free 1st shift workers was a valid the absence is a plea for the expression and of exercise of constitutional preservation merely of their assembly occupy a rights? property rights. But without local police officers. Material loss preferred position as can be repaired or adequately they are essential to W/N PBMEO was denied compensated. report to work free from powers of the harassment and as a government and consequence perform more tyranny. and property rights. for if resolution. The debasement the preservation and due process in the denial of of the human being—broken in vitality of our civil their motion for morale and brutalized in spirit— and political reconsideration? can never be fully evaluated in institutions. redress.  The pretension that  The Company is guilty of unfair the Company would labor practice. The insistence on not Material loss can be allowing the participation of . they would be appeal was filed in the employees so that they can useless against the Supreme Court. rights over property due to excusable the Company to protect the rights is recognized. negligence and honest Union from the harassment of These freedoms are mistake. monetary terms. It was to precious and waiting for any the interest of the Company to imprescriptible.  In the hierarchy of ISSUE:  The pretension that it would civil liberties. the present rally to the defense of its not. efficiently. assembly.

The inhibiting speech” debasement of the human being can On due process: YES never be fully  The exercise and enjoyment of evaluated in these rights must not be monetary terms. under pain of adequately dismissal. nullified by a mere procedural  Its refusal rule promulgated by the CIR. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of one speech. constituted an exercising a purely delegated unconstitutional legislative power. when even a restraint on their law enacted by Congress must freedom of yield to the untrammeled expression. enjoyment of these human and redress as it was rights. assembly. repaired or morning workers. It is a continuing immunity. these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by a rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal.  To accord supremacy to the . the printing of one article or the staging of one demonstration. inhibiting speech.  There is no time limit to the exercise of these freedoms. was a potent means of compensated. Otherwise.

constitutional rights may be protected by the courts only when their jurisdiction over the . if it appears that the determination of the constitutional issue is necessary to a decision of the case. Furthermore. Dominance and superiority of such over procedural rule of necessity should be affirmed. is not only incompatible with the basic tenet of constitutional government but also does violence to natural reason and logic. foregoing rules of the CIR over basic human rights sheltered by the Constitution. the very lis mota of the case. Barredo (dissenting)  The case does not allow for the resolution of any constitutional issue. A procedural rule gives way to a constitutional right.  A constitutional issue can be raised any time even for the first time on appeal.

however.  Petitioners themselves alleged the flaw as a mere error of judgment rather than that of jurisdiction.  Petitioners do not claim a denial of due process in denying their motion for reconsideration. this principle is applied to annul or set aside final judgments only in case where there is a possible denial of due process.  No doubt no constitutional right can be sacrificed in the altar of procedural technicalities.  The rules fixing periods for the finality of judgment are in a sense more substantive than procedural in their real nature. subject matter is unquestionably established. Neither in the petition nor pleading is found assailing decision as null and void because it denied their constitutional liberty. for in their operation they have the effect of either creating or .

procrastination or failure to act on time is unquestionably a form of abandonment. terminating rights pursuant to the terms of the particular judgment concerned. bargaining in bad faith nor unfair labor practice as the Company conceded that demonstration was an . in fact. The most valuable right of a party may be lost by prescription because public policy demands that rights must be asserted in time.  There could not be. And the fact that the court that rendered such final judgment is deprived of jurisdiction or authority to alter or modify the same enhances such substantive character. as otherwise they can be waived. Teehankee (Separate concurring)  CIR’s order manifested grave abuse of discretion in fact and in law. On the other hand.

a willful violation of the CBA as the mass demonstration was not a declaration of strike. in law. . There could not be.inalienable right.