4

G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973

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:

Petitioner, a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent, decided to
stage a mass demonstration on March 4, 1969 at Malacanang  in protest against alleged abuses
of police.  Respondent called for a meeting asking the workers for the first and regular shifts to
cancel their participation for it would unduly prejudice the normal operation of the company.
All workers may join the mass demonstration except the first and regular shifts for this would
amount to an illegal strike, and failure to report on duty should cause dismissal. However,
petitioners countered that it was too late to change plans since demonstration is to be held the
following morning.. 

The petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the demonstration
despite the pleas of the respondent, so the company charged them with a violation of CBA
providing for “No Strike and No Lockout.” The petitioners contented that there was no violation
of the CBA since they provided prior notice of the mass demonstration, which is a valid exercise
of their constitutional freedom of speech, and that such was not a declaration of strike since it
was not directed against the respondent company. Petitioners were held guilty in Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR).

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners right to freedom of speech was violated.

Ratio Decidendi:

Yes, while the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over
property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and
assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of
our civil and political institutions.  A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights
requires existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive  evil which the State has
the right to prevent. This is not present in the case at bar. The mass demonstration was not a
strike, there being no industrial dispute between the labor union and the respondent firm. It is
merely n exercise of the right of free expression, peaceable assembly and redress of
grievances. 

The management has shown not only lack of good-will, but a complete lack of sympathetic
understanding of the plight of its laborers. It was more expedient for the firm to conserve its
income or profits, showing sheer opportunism. The strain construction of the CIR that a
stipulated working shifts deny the workers the right to stage mass demonstration during work
hours, constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life of the workers. An effective
demonstration, especially by a labor union, requires complete unity and total presence to
generate the maximum sympathy for the validity of their cause. 
Respondent firm is directed to reinstate the eight petitioners