PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORG. V. PBMEO G.R. No.

L-31195 June 5, 1973

FACTS:

The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (hereinafter referred to as PBMEO)
is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills
Co., Inc.

PBMEO informed the respondent company of their decision to have a mass demonstration at
Malacañang, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police and explained to respondent that
the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute
with Management. It was stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against the company
but in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.

In the first meeting, The respondent company showed respect to the inalienable constitutional right
to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of grievances of the
Union demonstration but the Company warned PBMEO that any demonstration for that matter
should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company and that workers who without
previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers present who are the
organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work shall be dismissed.

A second meeting was called by the Company where it reiterated their appeal that while the workers
may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to
participate, otherwise, they would be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took
place and the officers of the PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a violation of the ‘No Strike and No
Lockout’ clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent company. The Petitioners filed for
reconsideration but it was dismissed the motion for reconsideration of herein petitioners for being pro
forma as it was filed beyond the reglementary period.

ISSUE:

WON the CBA may inhibit the employees rights of free expression, free assembly freedom of speech and
freedom for petition for redress of grievances under the Constitution?

HELD:
NO. The demonstration held by petitioners was against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen,
not against their employer. The demonstration was purely an exercise of their freedom of expression
in general and of their right to assembly. As a matter of fact, it was the duty of the private respondent
firm to protect the petitioner Union from harassment of local police officers. The pretension of the
employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o’clock
to 2 o’clock in the afternoon is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. The primacy
of human rights such as freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of
grievances should be sustained over property rights.

In turn, the respondent company was the one guilty of unfair labor practice because of its refusal to
permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged police abuses.
Moreover, the subsequent dismissal of the petitioners from the service constituted an
unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of
petition for redress of grievances of the employees. Hence, the respondent Company committed an
unfair labor practice defined in Section 4 in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act 875, otherwise known
as the Industrial Peace Act.

As to the dismissal of the eight l(8) leaders 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. (Under Sec. 5 Article 2 and Section 6 of Article 14 of the Constitution).
Moreover, a penalty of dismissal for a one-day absent is considered so harsh and a cruel penalty.

As to the CIR’s dismissal of the MR due to it being filed 2 days late, the SC stressed out that
constitutional rights have dominance over procedural rules. The Court cited Section 20 of
Commonwealth Act No. 103, which states that 'The Court of Industrial Relations shall adopt its, rules
or procedure and shall have such other powers as generally pertain to a court of justice: Provided,
however, That in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy and in
exercising any duties and power under this Act, the Court shall act according to justice and equity and
substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound
by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just
and equitable.'

Hence, Petition granted. Setting aside as null and void the orders of the CIR and directing the re-
instatement of herein eight (8) petitioners.