PBM Employees Organization vs PBM Co, Inc.

,
G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973
Makasiar, C.J.
FACTS:

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; and that they
informed the respondent Company of their proposed demonstration.

The company, "while expressly acknowledging, that the demonstration is an inalienable right of
the Union guaranteed by the Constitution," nonetheless emphasized that "any demonstration for
that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the company" and "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 (;)"

ISSUE:

Whether or not the employees were illegally dismissed. (AFFIRMATIVE)

RULING:

Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of social justice
to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people," which guarantee is
emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State
shall afford protection to labor ...".

Respondent Court of Industrial Relations as an agency of the State is under obligation at all times
to give meaning and substance to these constitutional guarantees in favor of the working man;
for otherwise these constitutional safeguards would be merely a lot of "meaningless
constitutional patter." Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial Relations is
enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by
encouraging and protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the
purpose of collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-
being." It is most unfortunate in the case at bar that respondent Court of Industrial Relations, the
very governmental agency designed therefor, failed to implement this policy and failed to keep
faith with its avowed mission — its raison d'etre — as ordained and directed by the Constitution.