PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (PBMEO), 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.

SUBJECT MATTER – COURT EQUITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE. But also “law of the case” same as case 25

FACTS:

On March 2, 1969: the private respondent (company: Phil. BloomingMills Co.) was informed of the
planned rally of petitioners Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO or the union of
their employees) as an exercise of constitutional right of freedom expression in general and of their right
of assembly and petition for redress of grievances alleged abuses of the police officers of the
municipality of Pasig at Malacañang on March 4, 1969 to be participated in by the workers (by the 3
shifts which is 6am-2pm, 7am-4pm. and 8am-5pm respectively). The abuses of the Pasig police was not
mentioned but excerpt in the article suggest that it was an encroachment on their dignity as human
beings wherein they were humiliated and hinting strongly towards police brutality.

The next day, March 3, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills held 2 meetings in the morning and afternoon
where PBMEO confirmed the demonstration which has nothing to do with the Company because the
union has no quarrel or dispute with Management.

Unfortunately the company did not see it that way and informed PBMEO that while they support their
constitutional right, the rally should not affect the normal operation of the company therefore whoever
fails to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed for violation of the existing CBA Article
XXIV: NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE amounting to an illegal strike.

On the same day, Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company: REITERATING
REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969

The Company filed for violation of the CBA.  PBMEO answered that there is no violation since they gave
prior notice.  Moreover, it was not a mass demonstration for strike against the company.  

Judge Joaquin M. Salvador of the Court of Industrial Relations Ruled: PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad
faith and PBMEO officers directly responsible for the rally losing their status as employees 
PBMEO filed for a motion for reconsideration but it was 2 days late. The motion for reconsideration was
filed on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days from notice on September 22, 1969 of the order dated
September 15, 1969 or two (2) days late. Therefore the court denied the MR

ISSUES
"1. Does the refusal to heed a warning in the exercise of a fundamental right to peaceably assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances constitute bargaining in bad faith? and, "Do the facts
found by the court below justify the declaration and conclusion that the union was guilty of bargaining in
bad faith meriting the dismissal of the persons allegedly responsible therefor?

2. Was there grave abuse of discretion when the respondent court refused to act one way or another on the
petition for relief from the resolution?(this is the subject matter court equity and refers to the motion
for reconsideration that was dismissed)

RULING/ANSWER

The Rulings of the lower were set aside as null and void, company was ordered to reinstate the
petitioners.

Why human civil liberties more superior than property rights

Property and property rights can be lost; but human rights must be protected with the most vigilance.
Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in
morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms.

The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its
employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation
merely of their property rights.

On the other hand, 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 union was willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their demonstration would bring about
the desired relief from police abuses. But the company was adamant in refusing to recognize the superior
legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition for redress.

The firing of their employees for going to the demonstration and consequently being absent from work,
constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly employees.
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 ...". 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."

Court Equity as Dean Maceda wants us to understand that the Supreme Court will always protect the
constitutional rights for persons over the property rights.

Even in the Motion for reconsideration wherein the lawyers for PBMEO were faulted for their only
excuse offered for such delay is that both the President of the Union and the office clerk who
took charge of the matter forgot to do what they were instructed to do by counsel. The Supreme
court overlooked this because guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be impaired by rules on
procedure.

Enforcement of the basic human freedoms cannot be ignored in favor of organic law, and is a
most compelling reason to deny application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule which
impinges on such human rights. It is an accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the
inherent power to "suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation,
whenever the purposes of justice require."