PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT

ORGANIZATION vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO.,

INC.
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.

Facts: 

Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (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. 

Issue:

Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA?

Held: 

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 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 freedoms 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.”