Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs Philippine Blooming Mills.

, Inc application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only
G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973 "with narrow specificity." Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are
Author: Dayao, Abby imprescriptible.
- In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
Ponente: Makasiar position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and
Doctrine: such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property - The demonstration held by petitioners on March 4, 1969 before Malacañang was against alleged abuses
rights is recognized. of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer. The demonstration was purely and completely an
exercise of their freedom of expression in general and of their right of assembly and of petition for
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a redress of grievances before the appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, against the
preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political police officers of the municipality of Pasig. They exercised their civil and political rights for their mutual
institutions; and such "priority gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting aid and protection from what they believe were police excesses. It was the duty of herein private
dubious intrusions." respondent firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its members from the harassment of local police
officers.
Name of the parties: - To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in
Petitioner: Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the
Respondent: Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the
collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral
Facts: as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of
- Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration in front petition.
of Malacañang to express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police. - The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of
- After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in relation to our right
meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed.” The primacy of human rights— freedom
by the union. But it was stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against the company but was of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances—over property rights has
in fact an exercise of the laborers inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of been sustained.
speech and freedom for petition for redress of grievances.
- The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the normal course of their
business which may result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up with the threat of the possibility
that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed through with the rally.
- A second meeting took place where the company 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.
- The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of
bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of
Industrial Relations for being filed two days late.
Issue:
Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA? - NO
Ruling:
- No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property
rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious
in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual