CONSTI 2 1

Basic Concepts; Application of the Bill of Rights

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION v. PHILIPPINE

BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC.
June 5, 1973 | J. Makasiar

Petitioner: Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization, Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano,
Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, and Rodulfo
Munsod
Respondent: Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and Court of Industrial Relations

Doctrines: 1) In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position (over property rights). 2) Human rights are imprescriptible

FACTS
 March 1, 1969  Petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided
to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang to be held on March 4 to protest against alleged
abuses of the Pasig police. The mass demonstration would be participated in by the workers in the
first shift (6am to 2pm) as well as those in the regular 2 nd (7am to 4pm) and 3rd (8am to 5pm) shifts.
They informed the company of their proposed demonstration.
 March 2  the company learned of the proposed mass demonstration.
 March 3 (11am)  Company called a meeting at the Company canteen. PBMEO confirmed the
demonstration and said that the demonstration has nothing to do with the company because the
union has no quarrel or dispute with the management.
o Company 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 that any demonstration should not unduly prejudice
the normal operation of the Company. Atty. De Leon warned that any worker who belong
to the first and regular shifts who fail to report for work the following morning (March 4),
without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, would be dismissed because
such failure to report for work is a violation of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) and would thus amount to illegal strike.
 March 3 (5pm)  Another meeting where the Company said that while all workers may join the
Malacañang demonstration, the workers for the 1st and regular shifts should be excused from
joining the demonstration and should report for work (this means that workers in the 2nd and 3rd
shifts can go to the demonstration), in order not to violate that provisions in the CBA particularly
Article XXIV: “No lockout – no strike”.
 March 4 (9:50am)  a cablegram was sent to the Company: “Reiterating request excuse day shift
employees joining demonstration March 4, 1969”. Petitioners and their members (around 400
people) proceeded with demonstration. Company filed a charge against petitioners with “violation
of Section 4(a-1) in relation to Sections 13 and 14, as well as Section 15, all of RA 875, and of the
CBA providing for “No Strike and No Lockout”
 Sept. 15  CIR found PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith, with the officers (see individuals in
the list of petitioners above) as directly responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice
and were, as a consequence, considered to have lost their status as employees

(condensed) BASIC CONCEPTS and PRINCIPLES that underlie the issues posed (see pp. 201-202):
1. In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the
central core as well as the cardinal article of faith in our civilization.
2. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality, and security x x x.
3. The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the immunities
reserved by the sovereign people…the liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the liberties of one are not
safe unless the liberties of all are protected
4. 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.
5. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is
recognized…human rights are imprescriptible.

Garen, Gabrielle Dominique A. | A2022

19 January 2019
CONSTI 2 2
Basic Concepts; Application of the Bill of Rights

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1 – W/N PBMEA is guilty of bargaining in bad faith - NO
 Set against and tested by the principles governing a democratic society (see above), the Court held
that the CIR’s conclusion that PBMEAs “concerted act and occurrence of temporary stoppage of
work” amounted to bad faith cannot be sustained.
 To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad
faith…stretches unduly the compass of the CBA, is “a potent means of inhibiting speech”, and
therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantee of free expression,
or peaceful assembly, and of petition.
 The demonstration was “purely and completely an exercise of their freedom of expression in
general and of their right to assembly and of petition for redress of grievances in particular”.
 As a matter of fact, it was the duty of the Company to protect the Union and its members from
harassment of local police officers. “In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression as
well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the
employees and laborers were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded
them by the Constitution – the untrammeled enjoyment of their basic human rights.”
 The Company’s pretension that it would suffer loss or damage because of the absence of its
employees is for preservation merely of their property rights. In the hierarchy of civil liberties,
the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position (over property)
as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions.
 The Company argued that there was no need for all its employees to participate in the
demonstration. The Court held that this argument “failed to appreciate the sine qua non of an
effective demonstration especially by a labor union, namely the complete unity of the Union
members as well as their total presence at the demonstration site.”

ISSUE #2 – W/N the Company is guilty of unfair labor practice – YES

 The refusal on the part of the Company to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass
demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of 8 petitioners from
service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on their freedom of expression, freedom of
assembly and freedom to petition for redress of grievances.
o “There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the request
of the Union for excuse from work for the day shifts in order to carry out its mass demonstration. And
to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the Pasig police, not against
the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the employer, which is as unchristian as it is
unconstitutional”
 The Company thus committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to
Section 3 of RA 875 (Industrial Peace Act). Sec. 3 guarantees to the employees the right “to engage
in concerted activities for x x x mutual aid or protection”. Section 4 (a-1) regards as unfair labor
practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Sec 3”.
 While the CIR found that the demonstrations “paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the
complainant company”, they did not make any finding as to the fact of loss actually sustained. This
can only mean that the firm did not sustain any loss or damage.
 The dismissal of the 8 union leaders constitutes a denial of social justice assured by Section
5 of Article II of the (1973) Constitution “the promotion of social justice to insure the well-
being and economic security of all the people”, which is also emphasized in Section 6 of
Article XIV that states “the State shall afford protection to labor x x x.”
 Under the Industrial Peace Act, the CIR 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”. In this case, the CIR failed to keep faith with its avowed mission.
 This violation of a constitutional right divests the CIR of jurisdiction and as a consequence, its
judgement is null and void.
 The appropriate penalty – if the employees’ actions deserve any penalty at all – should have
been simply to charge said one-day absence against their vacation or sick leave.

Garen, Gabrielle Dominique A. | A2022

19 January 2019
CONSTI 2 3
Basic Concepts; Application of the Bill of Rights

ISSUE #3 – W/N the motion for reconsideration filed by PBMEA has prescribed - NO
 The motion for reconsideration was filed on Sept. 29, or 7 days from notice on Sept. 22 of the order
dated Sept. 15. In other words, it was filed 2 days late. Their Arguments were also filed late (only
on Oct. 14, or 5 days after the deadline of 10 days after filing MoR)
 There is no time limit to the exercise of these [freedoms/basic rights]. It is a continuing
immunity…otherwise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by a rule on
procedure prescribing the period for appeal.
 To accord supremacy to the rules of the CIR over basic human rights sheltered by the Constitution
is not only incompatible with the basic tenet that the Constitution is superior to any statute or
subordinate rules and regulations, but also does violence to natural reason and logic.
 The CIR rule is unreasonable; a mere 5 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration
is too short, especially for aggrieved workers, who usually do not have the ready funds to
meet the necessary expenses therefore.
 The suspension of the application of the CIR rule on reglementary period for appeal (Sec. 15)
follows the SC’s ability to suspend its own rules whenever the purposes of justice require, and also
by Sec. 20 of the Commonwealth Act No 103 (the CIR charter).

RULING: CIR orders set aside as null and void, and reinstating the employment of the 8 union leaders

DISSENTING / CONCURRING / SEPARATE OPINION

J. Barredo (Dissenting)
 Jurisprudence supports the contention that a motion file out of time must be denied and the order
or decision becomes final and unappealable (Bien v. Castillo, PELTA v. Martinez, Local 7 Press &
Printing Free Workers v. Tabigne, Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., v CIR).
o The unbending doctrine of this Court is that “decisions, erroneous or not, become final after
the period fixed by law”
 This case does not call for the resolution of any constitutional issue. Petitioners themselves
consider the alleged flaw in the court’s action as a mere error of judgement rather than that of
jurisdiction which the main opinion projects.
 No doubt no constitutional right can be sacrificed in the alter of procedural technicalities. But this
principle is applied to annul or set aside final judgement only in cases wherein there is a possible
denial of due process. No such claim of denial exists in this case.
 The power granted to SC to review decisions of lower courts involving questions of law is not
unqualified. If, by law or rule, the judgement of the CIR is already final and executory, this Court
would be devoid of power and authority to review, much less alter or modify it
 To say that 5 days is an unreasonable period for filing is simply incomprehensible. The purpose of
the MoR requirement is to apprise everyone concerned within the shortest possible time that a
reconsideration is to be sought. The rules fixing the periods for the finality of judgements are more
substantive than procedural for they have the effect of either creating or terminating rights.

J. Teehankee (Concurring)
 CIR’s finding of bad faith in bargaining, ordering of termination of 8 union officers, and dismissal of
the Motion for Reconsideration for having been filed 2 days late, manifestly constituted grave abuse
of discretion in fact and in law
 No person may be deprived of basic rights without due process…Due process is hostile to any
official action marred by lack of reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from
arbitrariness.

SUPERDIGEST ENTRY
Trigger Words: labor union, mass demonstration, dismissed because of rally, police abuse
Facts: Employees request time off to protest against police abuse, company refuses, fires union leaders.
Doctrines: 1) In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position (over property rights). 2) Human rights are imprescriptible
Ruling: CIR decision reversed, union leaders reinstated
Relevant Provisions: 1987 Constitution: Sec. 10 and 18, Art. II, Section 3, Art. XIII

Garen, Gabrielle Dominique A. | A2022

19 January 2019