Scribd
Upload
63 views

A) CMS Estate, Inc. V SSS, 132 SCRA 108 B) Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. 17 SCRA 1077

The Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization decided to stage a demonstration against alleged abuses by the Pasig Police. The company asked them to cancel it due to concerns about lost revenue, threatening job losses. At a second meeting, the company said first and regular shift workers shouldn't participate or they would be dismissed. The demonstration occurred and union officers were fired. The court found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement, as the demonstration addressed police abuses, not the employer. The court also found the company committed an unfair labor practice by restricting employees' constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

Uploaded by

Janine Castro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views

A) CMS Estate, Inc. V SSS, 132 SCRA 108 B) Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. 17 SCRA 1077

The Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization decided to stage a demonstration against alleged abuses by the Pasig Police. The company asked them to cancel it due to concerns about lost revenue, threatening job losses. At a second meeting, the company said first and regular shift workers shouldn't participate or they would be dismissed. The demonstration occurred and union officers were fired. The court found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement, as the demonstration addressed police abuses, not the employer. The court also found the company committed an unfair labor practice by restricting employees' constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

Uploaded by

Janine Castro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

a) CMS Estate, Inc.

v SSS, 132 SCRA 108;

b) Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. 17 SCRA 1077


Facts:

Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass


demonstration in front of Malacañang to express their grievances against the alleged
abuses of the Pasig Police.

After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc.,
called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned
demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out that the
demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in fact an exercise of the
laborers' inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech
and freedom for petition for redress of grievances.

The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the normal
course of their business which may result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up
with the threat of the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed
through with the rally.

A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that while the
workers may be allowed to participate, 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 Agreement.

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.

Issue:

Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA?

Held:

No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are "delicate and
vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions
may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they
"need breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow
specificity." Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights
are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights to freedom of expression
and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation
and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties
the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."

The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of
petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or
"when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we
shall be governed.”

NOTE:

 It is the duty of employer to protect employees against police abuses.—As a


matter of fact, it was the duty of herein respondent firm to protect herein
petitioner Union and its members from the harassment of local police officers. It
was to the interest of herein respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and to take
up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from
harassment, vexation or peril and as a consequence perform more efficiently
their respective tasks to enhance its productivity as well as profits.

 Demonstration against police abuses not a violation of collective bargaining


agreement.—As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights—freedom of
expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances—over
property rights has been sustained. Emphatic reiteration of this basic tenet as a
coveted boon—at once the shield and armor of the dignity and worth of the
human personality, the all-consuming ideal of our enlightened civilization—
becomes Our Duty, if freedom and social justice have any meaning at all for him
who toils so that capital can produce economic goods that can generate
happiness for all. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against
the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a
violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal
from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the
compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting
speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the
constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of
petition.

 Same; Labor Law; All employees of a firm and not merely those belonging to a
particular shift may join demonstration.—The respondent firm claims that there
was no need for all its employees to participate in the demonstration and that
they suggested to the Union that only the first and regular shift from 6 a.m. to 2
p.m. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be
averted. This stand failed to appreciate the sine qua non of an effective
demonstration especially by a labor union, namely, the complete unity of the
Union members as well as their total presence at the demonstration site in order
to generate the maximum persuasive force that will gain for them not only public
sympathy for the validity of their cause but also immediate action on the part of
the corresponding government agencies with jurisdiction over the issues they
raised against the local police. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of
expression. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then by that much the
circulation of the issues raised by the demonstration is diminished. ... At any rate,
the Union notified the company two days in advance of their projected
demonstration and the company could have made arrangements to counteract or
prevent whatever losses it might sustain by reason of the absence of its workers
for one day, especially in this case when the Union requested it to excuse only
the day shift employees who will join the demonstration. ... There was a lack of
human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the
request... And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held
against the Pasig police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the
part of the employer, which is as unchristian as it is unconstitutional.

Same; Same; Employer who refuses its employees to join demonstration against police
abuse guilty of unfair labor practice.—Because 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 their 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(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of
R.A. No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of R.A. 875
guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concerted activities for xxx mutual
aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section Three." xxx The insistence on the part of the respondent firm that
the workers for the morning and regular shifts should not participate in the mass
demonstration, under pain of dismissal, was as heretofore state, "a potent means of
inhibiting speech."

c) Ortega v SSC, 555 SCRA353


d) Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v SSC, 1 SCRA 10
e) Investment Planning Corp. of the Phil. V SSS, 21 SCRA 924
f) Corporal, Sr. v NLRC, 341 SCRA 658

You might also like