PBM Employees Asso.

v PBM 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

Facts: Petitioners informed the respondent employers of their schedule for a
mass demonstration in protest for the alleged abuses of the Pasig police.
Respondent invoke that the demonstration is a violation of their CBA agreement
however petitioners contend it is an exercise of their freedom to peaceable
assembly to seek redress of their grievances against the abusive Pasig police and
not a strike against their employer. Respondent dismissed the petitioners and the
court sustained their demonstration is one of bargaining in bad faith.
Issue: Whether or not there was a restraint in the exercise of the right to
peaceable assembly of the petitioners.
Held: The court held that the primacy of human rights such as freedom of
expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances over
property rights has been sustained. The obvious purpose of the mass
demonstration staged by the workers of the respondent firm was for their mutual
aid and protection against alleged police abuses, denial of which was interference
with or restraint on the right of the employees to engage in such common action
to better shield themselves against such alleged police indignities. Apart from
violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly as well as the
right to petition for redress of grievances of the employees, the dismissal of the
eight (8) leaders of the workers for proceeding with the demonstration and
consequently being absent from work, constitutes a denial of social justice
likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly employees.
==
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Association v Philippine Blooming
Mills
51
SCRA
189
F: petitioners staged a mass demonstration before the Malacanang Palace
expressing their grievance against the abuses of the Pasig police. Their employer,
herein respondent called for a meeting with the petitioner appealing to go back
to work as it could hamper their operation of business and it is against the no

strike, no lockout clause of their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioners

assert they are not performing a strike but an exercise of the laborers
constitutional right to freedom of expression. A second mtng. was called by
respondent to urge the petitioners to report to work otherwise they will be
dismissed from work. Petitioners did not grant the request of the respondent who
consequently dismissed the officials of petitioners on grounds for violation of
their CBA. The court ruled in favor of respondents hence this petition for review.
I: WON there is justified cause for the dismissal of the petitioners
R: Workers acted right in the exercise of their freedom to expression. The
petitioners explained to the company that such is what they are trying to assert
thus it is not violative of their agreement on no strike, no lockout rule. The
companys right to property should yield to the workers Constitutional right to
freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to petition for redress of
grievances. The companys loss of unrealized profits for the day of the strike is not
as important as the workers fight their rights. In fact, they were even able to save
money on the operational expenses for that day. The Court of Industrial Relations
should not be confined by technical and procedural rules in its quest for justice.
Since the CIR is a creature of the Legislature and even the rules of the legislature
itself must be liberally applied if strict adherence to it would result in the denial of
a persons constitutional right, the CIR should not have denied their motion for
reconsideration. In doing so, the court divested itself of their jurisdiction which
renders their decision in favor of thecompany null and void.The rights of free
expression, free assembly and petition are not only civil rights but also political
rights essential to mans enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and
complete fulfillment. Human rights are supreme over property rights since
property rights can be lost through prescription while human rights do not
prescribe. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a
morestringent criterion, namely EXISTENCE OF A GRAVE AND
IMMEDIATE DANGER OF A SUBSTANTIVE EVILWHICH THE STATE HAS THE
RIGHT TO PREVENT.When a Court acts against the Constitution, its judgments and

orders become null and void. A court may suspend its own rules whenever the
purposes of justice requires it.