Cabrera, Jordan S.

21-15-178

BsCrim-24 Human Rights Education

The Case of Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights (CHR) (G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991)

NAME OF PONENTE

NARVASA, J.:

SYPNOSIS

The teachers participating in the “mass concerted actions” were served with an order of the Secretary of
Education to return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the DECS
officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply and to hire their
replacements. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, the CHR complainants (private respondents)
were administratively charged on the basis of the principal's report and given five (5) days to answer the
charges. They were also preventively suspended for ninety (90) days "pursuant to Section 41 of P.D. 807"
and temporarily replaced. An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges in
accordance with P.D. 807.

FACTS

 Some 800 public school teachers, members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association
(MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what they described as "mass
concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their plight resulting from the alleged failure of
the public authorities to act upon grievances.
 Teachers participating in the mass actions were served with an order of the Secretary of
Education to return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the
DECS officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply and
to hire their replacements.
 Among those who took part in the "concerted mass actions" were the eight (8) private
respondents herein, teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School, Manila, who had agreed to
support the non-political demands of the MPSTA.

ISSUES

 Whether or not the striking teachers were denied due process, and just cause exists for the
imposition of administrative disciplinary sanctions on them by their superiors; and whether or
not the grievances which were "the cause of the mass leave of MPSTA teachers, (and) with
which causes they (CHR complainants) sympathize," justify their mass action or strike.

 The question of (a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachers
constitute and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or not the act of
carrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those
actions, and return to their classes despite the order to this effect by the Secretary of Education,
constitute infractions of relevant rules and regulations warranting administrative disciplinary
sanctions, or are justified by the grievances complained of by them; and (c) what where the
 particular acts done by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if any, may properly be
imposed for said acts or omissions.

 Whether or not the commission have the power to adjudicate like a court of justice or even a
quasi-judicial agency, and whether or not it has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over, or the
power to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged
human rights violations involving civil or political rights.

RULING

 The Court declares that the CHR to have no such power, and it was not meant by the
fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much
less take over the functions of the latter. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in
the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, receive evidence and make findings of
fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding
is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to judicial function of a court of justice, or even a
quasi-judicial agency or official.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the Order of December 29, 1990 is ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE, and the respondent Commission on Human Rights and the Chairman and Members
thereof are prohibited "to hear and resolve the case (i.e., Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775)
on the merits."

DOCTRINES

The commission does not have the power of adjudication, and emphasized that its functions
were primarily investigatory. The Commission evidently intends to itself adjudicate, that is to say,
determine with character of finality and definiteness, the same issues which have been passed
upon and decided by the Secretary of Education, Culture & Sports, subject to appeal to the Civil
Service Commission, this Court having in fact, as aforementioned, declared that the teachers
affected may take appeals to the Civil Service Commission on said matters, if still timely.
Cabrera, Jordan S. 21-15-178

BsCrim-24 Human Rights

BRIGIDO R. SIMON JR. vs Commission on Human Rights (CHR) (G. R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994)

PONENTE

VITUG, J.:

SYPNOSIS

The extent of the authority and power of the Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") is again placed into
focus in this petition for prohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary injunction. The
petitioners ask us to prohibit public respondent CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No.
90-1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al."

The case all started when a "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July 1990, signed by Carlos Quimpo (one of the
petitioners) in his capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management
Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and received by, the private respondents (being
the officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated). In said notice, the
respondents were given a grace-period of three (3) days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to vacate the
questioned premises of North EDSA.

FACTS

Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the PRS were informed by petitioner Quimpo that their
stalls should be removed to give way to the "People's Park."

On July 12 1990, the group, led by their President Roque Ferno, filed a letter-complaint with the CHR
against the petitioners, asking the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter addressed to
then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of QC to stop the demolition.

On July 23 1990, the CHR issued an order, directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls
and shanties at North Edsa pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint before the
Commission" and ordered said petitioners to appear before the CHR.

On Aug. 1, 1990, the CHR, in its resolution, ordered the disbursement of financial assistance of not more
than P200k in favor of PRs to purchase light housing materials and food under the Commission's
supervision and again directed the petitioners to "desist from further demolition, with the warning that
violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest."

On Sept. 10, 1990, a motion to dismiss (MD) filed by the petitioners before the CHR questioned CHR's
jurisdiction. It was stated that the CHR's authority should be understood as being confined only to the
investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that "the rights allegedly violated not such
rights but privilege to engage in business."
ISSUES

Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to impose a fine for
contempt.

Whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction to investigate the alleged violations of the
"business rights" of the private respondents whose stalls were demolished by the petitioners at the
instance and authority given by the Mayor of Quezon City; to impose the fine of P500.00 each on the
petitioners; and to disburse the amount of P200,000.00 as financial aid to the vendors affected by the
demolition.

RULING

The challenge on the CHR's disbursement of the amount of P200,000.00 by way of financial aid to the
vendors affected by the demolition is not an appropriate issue in the instant petition. Not only is there
lack of locus standi on the part of the petitioners to question the disbursement but, more importantly,
the matter lies with the appropriate administrative agencies concerned to initially consider.

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for in this petition is GRANTED. The Commission on Human Rights is
hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the
P500.00 fine for contempt. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued by this Court is made
permanent. No costs.

DOCTRINES

Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate all forms of human
rights violations involving civil and political rights. The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia
cannot fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights".

Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity and are the same in all
parts of the world. Human rights include civil rights (right to life, liberty and property; freedom of
speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom; rights of the accused to due process of law), political
rights (right to elect public officials, to be elected to public office, and to form political associations and
engage in politics), social rights (right to education, employment and social services.
Case 3

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC.
and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973)

MAKASIAR, J.:

The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (hereinafter referred to as PBMEO) is a
legitimate labor union composed of the 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 officers and members of the
petitioner Union.

Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang on
March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers
in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts (from 7
A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the respondent Company
of their proposed demonstration.

FACTS

 That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass demonstration at
Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police Department to be participated
by the first shift (6:00 AM-2:00 PM) workers as well as those working in the regular shifts (7:00
A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) in the morning of March 4, 1969;
 That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M. at the
Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur L. Ang (2) Atty. S.
de Leon, Jr., (3) and all department and section heads. For the PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano,
(2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4) Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6)
Benjamin Pagcu.
 That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass demonstration
at Malacañang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who acted as spokesman of the
union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally
cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained
further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no
quarrel or dispute with Management;
 That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that
the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but
emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the
normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon
warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who
without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present
who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following
 morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing
CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike;

ISSUES

Whether or not to regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as
evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining
agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees. stretches
unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is an inhibition of the rights of free
expression, free assembly and petition.

Whether or not the fact that the motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days late defeat the rights
of the petitioning employees?

RULING

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.

DOCTRINES

It was the duty of herein private respondent firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its members
from the harassment of local police officers. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally
to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from
harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks
enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede
for its employees with the local police. Was it securing peace for itself at the expenses of its workers?
Was it also intimidated by the local police or did it encourage the local police to terrorize or vex its
workers? Its failure to defend its own employees all the more weakened the position of its laborers the
alleged oppressive police who might have been all the more emboldened thereby subject its lowly
employees to further indignities.