Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18.phil. Blooming Mills Employees vs. PBM, Inc
18.phil. Blooming Mills Employees vs. PBM, Inc
190
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
191
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
192
193
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
194
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
Three." xxx The insistence on the part of the respondent firm that
the workers for the morning and regular shifts should not
participate in the mass demonstration, under pain of dismissal,
was as heretofore state, "a potent means of inhibiting speech."
Evidence; Lack of finding the company did not suffer any loss
means not such loss was sustained.—While the respondent Court
found that the demonstration "paralyzed to a large extent the
operations of the complainant company," the said court did not
make any finding as to the fact of loss actually sustained by the
firm. This significant circumstance can only means that the firm
did not sustain any loss or damage.
Constitutional and Political Law; Labor Law; Dismissal from
work of leaders of demonstration against police abuses constitutes
denial of social justice.— 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 xxx". Respondent Court 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 that said court failed
to implement this policy.xxx
Same; When a court acts against the Constitution, its
judgments and orders become null and void.—Having violated the
basic human rights of the laborers, the Court of Industrial
Relations ousted itself of jurisdiction and the questioned orders it
issued in the instant case are a nullity.
Same; CIR rules against late filing of a motion for
reconsideration cannot prevail over basic constitutional rights.—
Does the mere fact that the motion for reconsideration was filed
two days late defeat the rights of the petitioning employees for
their
195
196
MAKASIAR, J.:
197
198
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
________________
200
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
_______________
201
_______________
202
_______________
8 Marsh vs. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 509; Tucker vs. Texas, 326 U.S.
517, 519-520.
9 NACCP vs. Button (Jan. 14, 1963) 371 U.S. 415, 433, 9 L.Ed. 2nd 405,
418.
10 Terminiello vs. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1.
11 Thomas vs. Collins (1945), 323 U.S., 516, 530, cited by Mr. Justice
Castro in his concurring opinion in Gonzales vs. Comelec, April 18, 1969,
27 SCRA 835, 895.
203
II
_________________
12 Edu vs. Ericta, L-32096, Oct. 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481, 489; Ichong vs.
Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155, 1165-66, 1175.
13 L-27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835; L-32432, Sept. 11, 1970, 35
SCRA 28; Ignacio vs. Ela (1965), 99 Phil. 346; Primicias vs. Fugoso (1948),
80 Phil 71; Terminiello vs. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1; Virginia State Board of
Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639; 87 Law. Ed. 1628, 1638.
14 March 9, 1964, 376 U.S. 254, 270; Greenbelt, etc. vs. Bresler (May 18,
1970), 398 U.S. 6, 20; see also Justice Fernando, Bill of Rights, 1970 Ed.,
pp. 78-81, 96-113.
15 Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra.
16 Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra.
17 Dennis vs. U.S. (1951), 341 U.S. 494.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
204
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
not spell the difference between the life and death of the
firm or its owners or its management. The employees'
pathetic situation was a stark reality—abused, harassed
and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace
officers of the municipality. As above intimated, the
condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-
vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally
affected their right to individual existence as well as that of
their families. 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 wounds fester and the
scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he
cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is like
rubbing salt on bruised tissues.
As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights—
freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition
for redress18 of grievances—over property rights has been
sustained. Emphatic reiteration of this basic tenet as a
coveted boon—at once the shield and armor of the dignity
and worth of the human personality, the all-consuming
ideal of our enlightened civilization—becomes Our duty, if
freedom and social justice have any meaning at all for him
who toils so that capital can produce economic goods that
can generate happiness for all. 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 "a
potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a
moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional
guarantees
19
of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of
petition.
_______________
18 Marsh vs. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501; Tucker vs. Texas, 326 U.S. 517.
19 Pickering vs. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574 (1968).
206
_______________
207
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
III
______________
208
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
_______________
22 Pickering vs. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574, 20 L.Ed. 2nd,
811, 820.
23 Republic Savings Bank vs. C.I.R., et al., Sept. 27, 1967, 21 SCRA
226, 232, 233, 661, 662, 663-664.
24 21 SCRA 233.
209
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
IV
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
_______________
212
28
the courts as well as private citizens and corporations, the
exercise and enjoyment of which must not be nullified by a
mere procedural rule promulgated by the Court of
Industrial Relations exercising a purely delegated
legislative power, when even a law enacted by Congress
must yield to the untrammelled enjoyment of these human
rights. There is no time limit to the exercise of these
freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the
delivery of one speech, the printing of one article or the
staging of one demonstration. It is a continuing immunity,
to be invoked and exercised when exigent and expedient
whenever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to be
denounced, inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise,
these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by
a rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The
battle then would be reduced to a race for time. And in
such a contest between an employer and its laborer, the
latter eventually loses because he cannot employ the best
and dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the
required diligence and zeal, bereft as he is of the financial
28-a
resources with which to pay for competent legal services.
VI
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
_____________
213
are concerned.
It should be stressed here that the motion for
reconsideration dated September 27, 1969, is based on the
ground that the order sought to be reconsidered "is not in
accordance with law, evidence and facts adduced during
the hearing," and likewise prays for an extension of ten (10)
days within which to file arguments pursuant to Sections
15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the Court of Industrial
Relations (Annex "G", pp. 57-60, rec.); although the
arguments were actually filed by the herein petitioners on
October 14, 1969 (Annex "I", pp. 70-73, rec.), long after the
10-day period required for the filing of such supporting
arguments counted from the filing of the motion for
reconsideration. Herein petitioners received only on
October 28, 1969 the resolution dated October 9, 1969
dismissing the motion for reconsideration for being pro
forma since it was filed beyond the reglementary period
(Annex "J", pp. 74-75, rec.)
It is true that We ruled in several cases that where a
motion to reconsider is filed out of time, or where the
arguments in support of such motion are filed beyond the
10 day reglementary period provided for by the Court of
Industrial Relations rules, the order or decision subject
29-a
of
reconsideration becomes final and unappealable. But in
all these cases, the constitutional rights of free expression,
free assembly and petition were not involved.
It is a procedural rule that generally all causes of action
and defenses presently available must be specifically raised
in the complaint or answer; so that any cause of action or
defense not raised in such pleadings, is deemed waived.
______________
29-a Elizalde & Co., Inc. vs. C.I.R., et al., September 23, 1968, 25 SCRA
58, 61-63; Bien vs. Castillo, 97 Phil. 956; Pangasinan Employees, etc. vs.
Martinez, May 20, 1960, 108 Phil. 89; Local 7, etc. vs. Tabigne, Nov. 29,
1960, 110 Phil. 276; Luzon Stevedoring vs. C.I.R., July 26, 1963, 8 SCRA,
447; Manila Metal, etc. vs. C.I.R., July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 552.
215
_______________
30 People vs, Vera, 65 Phil. 56. 82; Mercado vs. Bio O.G. 5360
30-a See Workmen's Ins. Co., Inc. vs. Augusto, L-31060, July 29, 1971, 40 SCRA
123, 127.
30-b Ronquillo vs. Marasigan, L-11621, May 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 304, 312-312;
Ordoveza vs. Raymundo, 63 Phil. 275.
30-c L-30570, July 29, 1969, 28 SCRA 890, 933-34.
216
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
____________
217
"As to the point that the evidence being offered by the petitioners
in the motion for new trial is not 'newly discovered,' as such term
is understood in the rules of procedure for the ordinary courts, We
hold that such criterion is not binding upon the Court of
Industrial Relations. Under Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No.
103, 'The Court of Industrial Relations shall adopt its rules or
procedure and shall have such other powers as generally pertain
to a court of justice: Provided, however, That in the hearing,
investigation and determination of any question or controversy
and in exercising any duties and power under this Act, the Court
shall act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of
the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall
not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may
inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and
equitable.' By this provision, the industrial court is disengaged
from the rigidity of the technicalities applicable to ordinary courts.
Said court is not even restricted to the specific relief demanded by
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
the parties but may issue such orders as may be deemed necessary
or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or dispelling
any doubts that may give rise to future disputes. (Ang Tibay v.
C.I.R., G.R., No. 46496, Feb. 17, 1940; Manila Trading & Supply
Co. v. Phil. Labor, 71 Phil. 124.) For these reasons, We believe
that this provision is ample enough to have enabled the
respondent court to consider whether or not its previous ruling
that petitioners constitute a minority was founded on fact,
without regard to the technical meaning of newly discovered
evidence.x x x x (Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Chua Kiong v.
Whitaker, 46 Phil. 578)." (italics supplied.)
______________
218
______________
219
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
220
_____________
31 A Living Bill of Rights (1961), pp. 61, 62, 64; 24 SCRA, 690-692;
italics supplied.
221
32
vs. C.I.R., where the petitioner Bank dismissed eight (8)
employees for having written and published "a patently
libelous letter x x x to the Bank president demanding his
resignation on the grounds of immorality, nepotism in the
appointment and favoritism as well as discrimination in
the promotion of bank employees." Therein, thru Mr.
Justice Castro, We ruled:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
"It will avail the Bank none to gloat over this admission of the
respondents. Assuming that the latter acted in their individual
capacities when they wrote the letter-charge they were
nonetheless protected for they were engaged in concerted activity,
in the exercise of their right of self organization that includes
concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, (Section 3 of the
Industrial Peace Act x x x). This is the view of some members of
this Court. For, as has been aptly stated, the joining in protests or
demands, even by a small group of employees, if in furtherance of
their interests as such, is a concerted activity protected by the
Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary that union activity be
involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated. (Annot., 6
A.L.R. 2d 416 [1949]).
XX XX XX XX XX
xx xx xx xx xx
_______________
222
xx xx xx xx xx
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
______________
33 21 SCRA 232-237.
223
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
224
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
225
226
two (2) days after the lapse of the five (5) day period
provided for the filing thereof in the rules of the Court of
Industrial Relations, whereas the "Arguments" were filed
five (5) days after the expiration of the period therefor also
specified in the same rules.
Accordingly, the first issue that confronts the Court is
the one raised by respondent private firm, namely, that in
view of the failure of petitioners to file not only their
motion for reconsideration but also their arguments in
support thereof within the periods respectively fixed in the
rules therefor, the Court of Industrial Relations acted
correctly and within the law in rendering and issuing its
impugned order of October 9, 1969 dismissing petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
Respondent's contention presents no problem. Squarely
applicable to the facts hereof is the decision of this Court in1
Elizalde & Co. Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
wherein it was ruled that:
______________
1 25 SCRA 58.
227
(respondents did not file their brief), the case is now before us for
resolution.
228
(97 Phil. 956) we ruled that where a pro forma motion for
reconsideration was filed out of time its denial is in order
pursuant to CIR rules, regardless of whether the arguments in
support of said motion were or were not filed on time. Pangasinan
Employees Laborers & Tenants Association (PELTA) vs.
Martinez, (L-13846, May 20, 1960) pronounced that where a
motion to reconsider is filed out of time, the order or decision
subject of reconsideration becomes final. And so also, where the
arguments in support of the motion for reconsideration are filed
beyond the ten-day reglementary period, the pro forma motion for
reconsideration although seasonably filed must nevertheless be
denied. This in essence is our ruling in Local 7, Press & Printing
Free Workers (FFW) vs. Tabigne. The teaching in Luzon
Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, is that
where the motion for reconsideration is denied upon the ground
that the arguments in support thereof were filed out of time, the
order or decision subject of the motion becomes 'final and
unappealable'.
"We find no difficulty in applying the foregoing rules and
pronouncements of this Court in the case before us. On August 6,
petitioner received a copy of the judgment of Judge Arsenio I.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
229
______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
2 86 Phil. 525.
231
"III
ISSUES
232
IV
ARGUMENT
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
233
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
234
235
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
_______________
237
_______________
238
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
_____________
7 Mauricio vs. Villanueva, 106 Phil. 1159, cited by Moran in Vol. II, p.
246 (1970 ed.).
8 Garchitorena vs. Sotelo, 74 Phil. 25.
9 Amuran vs. Aquino, 38 Phil. 29; Javier vs. Paredes, 52 Phil. 910;
Domingo vs. David, 68 Phil. 134.
10 Quion v. Claridad, 74 Phil. 100.
239
"x x x. Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of
occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at
some definite date fixed by law. The very object for which courts
were instituted was to put an end to controversies. To fulfill this
purpose and to do so speedily, certain time limits, more or less
arbitrary, have to be set up to spur on the slothful. 'If a
vacillating, irresolute judge were allowed to thus keep causes ever
within his power, to determine and redetermine them term after
term, to bandy his judgments about from one party to the other,
and to change his conclusions as freely and as capriciously as a
chamelon may change its hues, then litigation might become more
intolerable than the wrongs it is intended to redress.' (See Arnedo
vs. Llorente and Liongson (1911), 18 Phil., 257.)."
240
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
"Sec. 15. The movant shall file the motion, in six copies, within
five (5) days from the date on which he receives notice of the order
or decision, object of the motion for reconsideration, the same to
be verified under oath with respect to the correctness of the
allegations of fact, and serving a copy thereof, personally or by
registered mail, on the adverse party. The latter may file an
answer, in six (6) copies, duly verified under oath.
"Sec. 16. Both the motion and the answer shall be submitted
with arguments supporting the same. If the arguments can not be
submitted simultaneously with said motions, upon notice to the
Court, the movant shall file same within ten (10) days from the
date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration. The adverse
party shall also file his answer within ten (10) days from the
receipt by him of a copy of the arguments submitted by the
movant.
"Sec. 17. After an answer to the motion is registered, or after
ten (10) days from the receipt of the arguments in support of said
motion having been filed, the motion shall be deemed submitted
for resolution of the Court in banc, unless it is considered
necessary to hear oral arguments, in which case the Court shall
issue the corresponding order or notice to that effect.
"Failure to observe the above-specified periods shall be
sufficient cause for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or
striking out of the answer and/or the supporting arguments, as
the case may be. (As amended April 20, 1951, Court of Industrial
Relations.)."
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
245
SEPARATE OPINION
TEEHANKEE,J., concurring:
_____________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
246
2
from arbitrariness."
Accordingly, I vote for the setting aside of the appealed
orders of the respondent court and concur in the judgment
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/48
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 051
______________
248
--------------o0o---------------
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774eb632ba408a4675003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/48