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.”
Thank you... very comprehsensive digest. Straight to the point as to relevance of facts down to the issues and ruling/principles of consti law. Once again, thank you. Hope you do more :) kudos!
ReplyDeleteI have hard time reading cases. This help me alot thanks
ReplyDelete