PBM Employees Association vs.

Philippine Blooming Mills

G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973

Facts:
Petitioners claimed 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. PBMEO
thru Pagcu stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already
been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing
to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management.

The Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that
the demonstration should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company and
warned them that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave
of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who are the organizers
of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed,
because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an
illegal strike

Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the
demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers should
not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second and third
shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, filed a
charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift, for a violation of
Republic Act No. 875(Industrial Peace Act), and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No
Lockout.'

Petitioners claim that they did not violate the existing CBA because they gave the respondent
Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969; that the said mass
demonstration was a valid exercise of their constitutional freedom of speech against the alleged
abuses of some Pasig policemen; and that their mass demonstration was not a declaration of
strike because it was not directed against the respondent firm.Petitioners were held guilty in by
CIR for bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or Not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble violated.

Ruling:
Yes. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,
namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the
right to prevent. This is not present in the case. It was to the interest herein private respondent
firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report
to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently
their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer
did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police.