8/9/2019 Philippine Blooming Employees Organization v.docx

1/3

Philippine Blooming Employees Organization v. PhilippineBlooming Mills (1973)G.R. o. !"3119# $%ne #& 1973

'ats

Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stagea mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to express theirgrievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police

!fter learning about the planned mass demonstration" PhilippineBlooming Mills #nc" called for a meeting $ith the leaders of the PBMEO%uring the meeting" the planned demonstration $as con&rmed by theunion But it $as stressed out that the demonstration $as not a stri'eagainst the company but $as in fact an exercise of the laborersconstitutional right to freedom of expression" freedom of speech andfreedom for petition for redress of grievances

 he company as'ed them to cancel the demonstration for it $ouldinterrupt the normal course of their business" $hich may result in theloss of revenue his $as bac'ed up $ith the threat of the possibilitythat the $or'ers $ould lose their *obs if they pushed through $ith therally

! second meeting too' place $here the company reiterated theirappeal that $hile the $or'ers may be allo$ed to participate" thosefrom the +st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to be ableto participate in the demonstration" other$ise" they $ould be

dismissed ,ince it $as too late to cancel the plan" the rally too' placeand the o-cers of the PBMEO $ere eventually dismissed for a violationof the ./o ,tri'e and /o 0oc'out clause of their 1ollective Bargaining!greement

 he lo$er court decided in favor of the company and the o-cers of thePBMEO $ere found guilty of bargaining in bad faith heir motion forreconsideration $as subse2uently denied by the 1ourt of #ndustrial3elations for being &led t$o days late

ss%e* 4hether or not the $or'ers $ho *oined the demonstration

violated the 1B!

+el,* /o

 he rights of free expression" free assembly and petition" are not onlycivil rights but also political rights essential to man5s en*oyment of hislife" to his happiness and to his full and complete ful&llment hruthese freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic

8/9/2019 Philippine Blooming Employees Organization v.docx

2/3

establishment of the government through their su6rage but also in theadministration of public a6airs as $ell as in the discipline of abusivepublic o-cers he citizen is accorded these rights so that he canappeal to the appropriate governmental o-cers or agencies for redressand protection as $ell as for the imposition of the la$ful sanctions on

erring public o-cers and employees

#n the hierarchy of civil liberties" the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to thepreservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions

 he court stated that the primacy of human rights over property rightsis recognized Because these freedoms are 7delicate and vulnerable" as$ell as supremely precious7 and the 7threat of sanctions may detertheir exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions"7 they 7need breathing space to survive"7 permitting

government regulation only 7$ith narro$ speci&city7

Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription8 but humanrights are imprescriptible #f human rights are extinguished by thepassage of time" then the Bill of 3ights is a useless attempt to limit thepo$er of government and ceases to be an e-cacious shield againstthe tyranny of o-cials

#t $as also pointed out in the case that the freedoms of speech and of the press as $ell as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute $hen directed against public o-cials or 7$hen

exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and $omen by$hom $e shall be governed

!s to the case itsel" the ,1 held that the petitioners did not violate the1B! $ith Phil Blooming mills he demonstration held petitionersbefore Malacañang $as against alleged abuses of some Pasigpolicemen" not against their employer ,aid demonstration $as purelyand completely an exercise of their freedom expression in general andof their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances #t $asthe duty of herein private respondent &rm to protect herein petitioner9nion and its members from the harassment of local police o-cers

 hey should have protected their employees o regard thedemonstration against police o-cers" not against the employer" asevidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement" stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement" thereby ma'ing it 7a potentmeans of inhibiting speech7 and therefore in:icts a moral as $ell asmortal $ound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression" of peaceful assembly and of petition he mass demonstration staged by

8/9/2019 Philippine Blooming Employees Organization v.docx

3/3

the employees could not have been legally en*oined by any court"because such an in*unction $ould be trenching upon the freedomexpression of the $or'ers" even if it legally appears to be illegalpic'eting or stri'e