Phil. Blooming Mill employees Org v. Phil. Blooming Mills Company, Inc.

MAIN TOPIC – BILL OF RIGHTS

I. FACTS

 The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a

legitimate labor union composed ofthe employees of the respondent Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano,
Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin
Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officersand members of the petitioner Union.
PBMEO decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to
express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police.

 After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills
Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the
planned demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out that
the demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in fact an
exercise of the laborers' inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression,
freedom of 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.

II. ISSUE
Whether or not the workers who joined the assembly violated the CBA.

II. HELD

NO. The workers did not violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement 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 application of sanctions, they need breathing space to survive,
permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and property
rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy
of civil liberties, the rights to freedom of expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political
institutions; and such
priority gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious
intrusions. The freedom of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and
of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or
"when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall
be governed.”

IV. DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered:
(1) setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations dated September 15 and
October 9, 1969; and
(2) directing the re instatement of the herein eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay from
the date of their
separation from the service until re instated, minus one day's pay and whatever earnings
they might have realized
from other sources during their separation from the service.
With costs against private respondent Philippine Blooming Company, Inc.

V. DOCTRINE
The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security
against the assault of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of
small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with
general principles. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.