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.
[G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973]
Bill of Rights: Section 4 - Freedom of Expression

FACTS:

The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization

(hereinafter referred to as PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union composed
of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.,
and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas,
Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu
and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union.
PBMEO decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacaang to
express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police.

Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a

mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969, in protest against
alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers in
the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second
and third shifts (from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M.,
respectively); and that they informed the respondent Company of their
proposed demonstration.

The Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the
leaders of the PBMEO after learning about the planned mass
demonstration. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was
confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out by the union that the
demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in factual
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 favour of Philippine Blooming Mills Co.,

Inc., and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad
faith. The PBMEOs 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
Collective Bargaining Agreement?

RULING:

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 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. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not
merely in the periodic establishment of the government through their
suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the
discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so
that he can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies
for redress and protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful
sanctions on erring public officers and employees.