PHIL. BLOOMING EMPLOYEE VS.

PHIL BLOOMING MILLS

FACTS:

On March 4, 1969, Philippine Blooming Mills 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 about PBMEO's plans, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc. called for a meeting with the
leaders of the union. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by PBMEO, which
noted that the demonstration was not a strike against the company. PBMEO stated that the planned
demonstration was an exercise of the laborers' inalienable constitutional right to freedom of
expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of grievances against police
indignities.

The company asked PBMEO to cancel the demonstration, noting that the same would constitute an
interruption of the normal course of their business which may result in loss of revenue. The company
also threatened the workers that they would lose their jobs if they pushed through with the
demonstration.

A second meeting took place where the company stressed that those from the 1st and regular shifts
should not absent themselves to participate in the demonstration, otherwise, they would be dismissed.

Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the demonstration took place. The officers of PBMEO were
eventually dismissed by the company for violation of the "No Strike and No Lockout" clause of their
Collective Bargaining Agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether the dismissal of PBMEO officers from their employment constituted a violation of their
constitutional right to freedom of expression, assembly, and petition. -- YES.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that PBMEO needed even the first and regular shift workers for the
demonstration as their complete presence in the mass demonstration would generate the maximum
sympathy for the validity of their cause and immediate action on the part of corresponding agencies.

The company’s contention that it would suffer loss by reason of the absence of the employees from 6
AM – 2 PM is a plea for the preservation of merely their property rights. The appropriate penalty that
could have been imposed by the company – if it deserves any penalty at all – should have been simply
to charge the one-day absence of the workers against their vacation or sick leaves.

While the Bill of Rights protects property rights, human rights such as freedom of expression, assembly,
and petition, are supreme over property rights. Infringement on human right requires a more stringent
criterion for validation, as compared to impairment of property rights.

The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political
rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment.
Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the
government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the
discipline of abusive public officer.

The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere
reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose that
the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a law which
restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human
rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.