Philippine Blooming Mills Employeest Organization vs. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (G.R. No. L-31195)

Facts:

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police and that they informed the Philippine Blooming Mills Inc. (Company) of their proposed demonstration.

The company called a meeting with the officers of PBMEO after learning about the planned mass. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by the union,explaining further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management. It was stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against the company but in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.

Company informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company warned the PBMEO representatives that workers 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 shall be dismissed.

Another meeting was convoked by the Company. It reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that while  workers may join the Malacañang demonstration, 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.

The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed two days late. They then filed with the respondent court a petition for relief from the order dated Oct. 9,1969 on the ground that their failure to file their motion for reconsideration on time was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the president of the petitioner Union and of the office clerk of their counsel. However, without waiting for any resolution on their petition for relief, they filed with the Supreme Court a notice of appeal.

Issue:

1. Whether the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA.

2. Whether the company is guilty of unfair labor practice for dismissing its employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court did not sustain the conclusion of the CIR. The demonstration held by petitioners was against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer. The demonstration was purely an exercise of their freedom of expression in general and of their right to assembly. As a matter of fact, it was the duty of the private respondent firm to protect the petitioner Union from harassment of local police officers. The pretension of the employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o’clock to 2 o’clock in the afternoon is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. The primacy of human rights such as freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances should be sustained over property rights.

SC said that the respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because of the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4 in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. 

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 leaders 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. Section 5 of Article 2 of the Constitution imposes upon the State “the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people,” which guarantee is emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article 14 of the Constitution that “the State shall afford protection to labor...”.

Also, the denial by the CIR of the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner for the reason that it was filed 2 days late cannot be sustained. According to SC, such rule is unreasonable as procedural rule should not prevail over constitutional rights. Even the Supreme Court suspend its own rules whenever the purpose of justice require.

Furthermore, the dismissal of the eight leaders of the Union is a harsh punishment for a one-day absence from work. The appropriate penalty, if it deserves a penalty, should have been simply to charge said one-day absence against their vacation or sick leave. But to dismiss the eight leaders is a most cruel penalty.

Wherefore, the orders of the respondent court is null and void. Directing the reinstatement of the eight leaders with full back pay minus one day’s pay.