Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

PBM EMPLOYEES v.

PBM
June 5, 1973 | Makasiar, J. | Review of CIR decision | Freedom of Expression: RATIO:
Protected Speech (Assembly and Petition) 1. The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only
SUMMARY: PBMEO, despite being forewarned by PBM, proceeded with its civil rights but also political rights essential to mans enjoyment of his
demonstration against Pasig Police, resulting in the PBMEO officers life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. While the
dismissal. PBM contends that the demonstration prejudices the operation of the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
company. PBMEO argues that it is an exercise of their right to freedom of over property rights is recognized. The rights of free expressions and of
expression. SC ruled in favor of PBMEO. assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the
DOCTRINE: Human rights, like the freedom of expression and assembly, preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions.
have a primacy over property rights. 2. Property rights: can be lost thru prescription; minimum test: rational
relation between means and purpose of law not arbitrary,
FACTS: discriminatory or oppressive. Human rights: imprescriptible; stringent
1. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization, a legitimate labor criterion an existence of a grave and imminent danger of a substantive
union of PBM Co, Inc. employees, decided to stage a mass evil that the State has a right to prevent.
demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969 in protest against alleged 3. Demonstration was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom
abuses of the Pasig of expression in general and of their right of assembly and of petition for
2. Police, to be participated by the 1st shift (6:00-14:00), regular 2nd (07:00- redress of grievances harassment of local officers. The pretension of
3. 16:00) and 3rd shifts (08:00-19:00) workers. They informed PBM of PBM that it would suffer loss by reason of the absence of its employees
proposed demonstration, and that it was not directed towards the from 6 to
Company but towards said police. 1. 2 is a plea for the preservation of merely their property rights. Material
4. The Management of PBM informed them that the demonstration is an loss can be adequately compensated, while the debasement of a human
inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, but that any being can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms.
demonstration should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the 4. To regard the demonstration against police officers as evidence of bad
Company. It forewarned the PBMEO representatives that workers in the faith in the CBA and a cause for dismissal, stretches unduly the compass
1st and regular shifts, primarily the officers of PBMEO, who fail to report of the
for work on March 4th shall be dismissed for violating the existing CBA 2. CBA and is a potent means of inhibiting speech; therefore, it infringes
provision of No Lockout-No Strike. It proposed to utilize the 2nd and on the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, peaceful
3rd shifts (nonregular), instead of the 1st and regular shifts in order to not assembly and petition.
violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). 5. PBMs claim that it only suggested that the 1st and regular shifts should
5. Despite the pleas, petitioners proceeded with the demonstration. PBM report for work fails to appreciate the sine qua non of an effective
charged the petitioners and other employees in the 1st shift with a demonstration the complete unity of the Union members and their total
violation of Secs 4(a)-6, 13, 14, 15 of RA 875 and of the CBA providing presence. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression, if
for No Strike and No Lockout. The order found PBMEO guilty of the demonstrators are to be reduced by 1/3, then by that much the
bargaining in bad faith and for perpetrating a unfair labor practice, thus, circulation of the issues raised by the demonstration is diminished.
considered petitioners to have lost their status as employees of PBM. 6. At any rate, the PBMEO notified PBM 2 days in advance of the projected
demonstration. PBM could have made arrangements to counteract or
ISSUE: WoN PBMs property rights can thwart the Unions rights to free prevent whatever losses it might sustain by reason of absence of its
expression and assembly NO. workers for a day.
RULING: Orders of Court of Industrial Relations NULL AND VOID. 8
petitioners reinstated with full back pay from date of dismissal until reinstated.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen