Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIATION, NICANOR TOLENTINO,
!LORENCIO, PA"RIGANO RU!INO, RO#AS MARIANO "E LEON, ASENCION PACIENTE,
BONI!ACIO $ACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU %n& RO"UL!O MUNSO", petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. %n& COURT O! IN"USTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
L.S. Osorio & P.B. Castillo and J.C. Espinas & Associates for petitioners.
Demetrio B. Salem & Associates for private respondent.

MA'ASIAR, J.:
The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Emploees !rgani"ation #hereinafter referred to as PBME!$ is a
legitimate labor union composed of the emploees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., %nc.,
and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, &lorencio Padrigano, Rufino Ro'as, Mariano de (eon, Asencion
Paciente, Bonifacio )acuna, Ben*amin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the
petitioner +nion.
Petitioners claim that on March ,, ,-.-, the decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malaca/ang on
March 0, ,-.-, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in b the 1or2ers
in the first shift #from . A.M. to 3 P.M.$ as 1ell as those in the regular second and third shifts #from 4 A.M.
to 0 P.M. and from 5 A.M. to 6 P.M., respectivel$7 and that the informed the respondent Compan of
their proposed demonstration.
The 8uestioned order dated 9eptember ,6, ,-.-, of Associate :udge :oa8uin M. 9alvador of the
respondent Court reproduced the follo1ing stipulation of facts of the parties ; parties ;
<. That on March 3, ,-.- complainant compan learned of the pro*ected mass
demonstration at Malaca/ang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police
=epartment to be participated b the first shift #.>?? AM@3>?? PM$ 1or2ers as 1ell as
those 1or2ing in the regular shifts #4>?? A.M. to 0>?? PM and 5>?? AM to 6>?? PM$ in the
morning of March 0, ,-.-7
0. That a meeting 1as called b the Compan on March <, ,-.- at about ,,>?? A.M. at
the CompanAs canteen, and those present 1ere> for the Compan> #,$ Mr. Arthur (. Ang
#3$ Att. 9. de (eon, :r., #<$ and all department and section heads. &or the PBME! #,$
&lorencio Padrigano, #3$ Rufino Ro'as, #<$ Mariano de (eon, #0$ Asencion Paciente, #6$
Bonifacio )acuna and #.$ Ben*amin Pagcu.
6. That the Compan as2ed the union panel to confirm or den said pro*ected mass
demonstration at Malaca/ang on March 0, ,-.-. PBME! thru Ben*amin Pagcu 1ho
acted as spo2esman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated
that the demonstration or rall cannot be cancelled because it has alread been agreed
upon in the meeting. Pagcu e'plained further that the demonstration has nothing to do
1ith the Compan because the union has no 8uarrel or dispute 1ith Management7
.. That Management, thru Att. C.9. de (eon, Compan personnel manager, informed
PBME! that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed b the
Constitution but emphasi"ed, ho1ever, that an demonstration for that matter should not
undul pre*udice the normal operation of the Compan. &or 1hich reason, the Compan,
thru Att. C.9. de (eon 1arned the PBME! representatives that 1or2ers 1ho belong to
the first and regular shifts, 1ho 1ithout previous leave of absence approved b the
Compan, particularl , the officers present 1ho are the organi"ers of the demonstration,
1ho shall fail to report for 1or2 the follo1ing morning #March 0, ,-.-$ shall be dismissed,
because such failure is a violation of the e'isting CBA and, therefore, 1ould be
amounting to an illegal stri2e7
4. That at about 6>?? P.M. on March <, ,-.-, another meeting 1as convo2ed Compan
represented b Att. C.9. de (eon, :r. The +nion panel 1as composed of> Nicanor
Tolentino, Rodolfo Munsod, Ben*amin Pagcu and &lorencio Padrigano. %n this afternoon
meeting of March <, ,-.-, Compan reiterated and appealed to the PBME!
representatives that 1hile all 1or2ers ma *oin the Malaca/ang demonstration, the
1or2ers for the first and regular shift of March 0, ,-.- should be e'cused from *oining the
demonstration and should report for 1or27 and thus utili"e the 1or2ers in the 3nd and <rd
shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA, particularl Article BB%)> N!
(!CC!+T ; N! 9TR%CEA. All those 1ho 1ill not follo1 this 1arning of the Compan
shall be dismiss7 =e (eon reiterated the CompanAs 1arning that the officers shall be
primaril liable being the organi"ers of the mass demonstration. The union panel
countered that it 1as rather too late to change their plans inasmuch as the Malaca/ang
demonstration 1ill be held the follo1ing morning7 and
5. That a certain Mr. Dilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBME! sent a cablegram to the
Compan 1hich 1as received ->6? A.M., March 0, ,-.-, the contents of 1hich are as
follo1s> ARE%TERAT%NE REF+E9T EBC+9E =AG 9H%&T EMP(!GEE9 :!%N%NE
=EM!N9TRAT%!N MARCH 0, ,-.-.A #Pars. <@5, Anne' I&I, pp. 03@0<, rec.$
Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 0?? proceeded 1ith the demonstration
despite the pleas of the respondent Compan that the first shift 1or2ers should not be re8uired to
participate in the demonstration and that the 1or2ers in the second and third shifts should be utili"ed for
the demonstration from . A.M. to 3 P.M. on March 0, ,-.-, respondent Compan prior notice of the mass
demonstration on March 0, ,-.-, 1ith the respondent Court, a charge against petitioners and other
emploees 1ho composed the first shift, charging them 1ith a Iviolation of 9ection 0#a$@. in relation to
9ections ,< and ,0, as 1ell as 9ection ,6, all of Republic Act No. 546, and of the CBA providing for ANo
9tri2e and No (oc2out.A I #Anne' IAI, pp. ,-@3?, rec.$. The charge 1as accompanied b the *oint affidavit
of Arthur (. Ang and Cesareo de (eon, :r. #Anne' IBI, pp. 3,@30, rec.$. Thereafter, a corresponding
complaint 1as filed, dated April ,5, ,-.-, b Acting Chief Prosecutor Antonio T. Tirona and Acting
Prosecutor (inda P. %lagan #Anne' ICI, pp. 36@<?, rec.$
%n their ans1er, dated Ma -, ,-.-, herein petitioners claim that the did not violate the e'isting CBA
because the gave the respondent Compan prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 0, ,-.-7
that the said mass demonstration 1as a valid e'ercise of their constitutional freedom of speech against
the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen7 and that their mass demonstration 1as not a declaration of
stri2e because it 1as not directed against the respondent firm #Anne' I=I, pp. <,@<0, rec.$
After considering the aforementioned stipulation of facts submitted b the parties, :udge :oa8uin M.
9alvador, in an order dated 9eptember ,6, ,-.-, found herein petitioner PBME! guilt of bargaining in
bad faith and herein petitioners &lorencio Padrigano, Rufino Ro'as, Mariano de (eon, Asencion Paciente,
Bonifacio )acuna, Ben*amin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo Munsod as directl responsible for
perpetrating the said unfair labor practice and 1ere, as a conse8uence, considered to have lost their
status as emploees of the respondent Compan #Anne' I&I, pp. 03@6., rec.$
Herein petitioners claim that the received on 9eptember 3<, ,-.-, the aforesaid order #p. ,,, rec.$7 and
that the filed on 9eptember 3-, ,-.-, because 9eptember 35, ,-.- fell on 9unda #p. 6-, rec.$, a motion
for reconsideration of said order dated 9eptember ,6, ,-.-, on the ground that it is contrar to la1 and
the evidence, as 1ell as as2ed for ten #,?$ das 1ithin 1hich to file their arguments pursuant to 9ections
,6, ,. and ,4 of the Rules of the C%R, as amended #Anne' IEI, pp. 64@.?, rec. $
%n its opposition dated !ctober 4, ,-.-, filed on !ctober ,,, ,-.- #p. .<, rec.$, respondent Compan
averred that herein petitioners received on 9eptember 33, ,-.-, the order dated 9eptember ,4 #should
be 9eptember ,6$, ,-.-7 that under 9ection ,6 of the amended Rules of the Court of %ndustrial Relations,
herein petitioners had five #6$ das from 9eptember 33, ,-.- or until 9eptember 34, ,-.-, 1ithin 1hich to
file their motion for reconsideration7 and that because their motion for reconsideration 1as t1o #3$ das
late, it should be accordingl dismissed, invo2ing Bien vs. Castillo,
1
1hich held among others, that a
motion for e'tension of the five@da period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration should be filed
before the said five@da period elapses #Anne' IMI, pp. .,@.0, rec.$.
9ubse8uentl, herein petitioners filed on !ctober ,0, ,-.- their 1ritten arguments dated !ctober ,,,
,-.-, in support of their motion for reconsideration #Anne' I%I, pp. .6@4<, rec.$.
%n a resolution dated !ctober -, ,-.-, the respondent en banc dismissed the motion for reconsideration
of herein petitioners for being pro forma as it 1as filed beond the reglementar period prescribed b its
Rules #Anne' I:I, pp. 40@46, rec.$, 1hich herein petitioners received on !ctober 35, ,-. #pp. ,3 J 4.,
rec.$.
At the bottom of the notice of the order dated !ctober -, ,-.-, 1hich 1as released on !ctober 30, ,-.-
and addressed to the counsels of the parties #pp. 46@4., rec.$, appear the re8uirements of 9ections ,6, ,.
and ,4, as amended, of the Rules of the Court of %ndustrial Relations, that a motion for reconsideration
shall be filed 1ithin five #6$ das from receipt of its decision or order and that an appeal from the decision,
resolution or order of the C.%.R., sitting en banc, shall be perfected 1ithin ten #,?$ das from receipt
thereof #p. 4., rec.$.
!n !ctober <,, ,-.-, herein petitioners filed 1ith the respondent court a petition for relief from the order
dated !ctober -, ,-.-, on the ground that their failure to file their motion for reconsideration on time 1as
due to e'cusable negligence and honest mista2e committed b the president of the petitioner +nion and
of the office cler2 of their counsel, attaching thereto the affidavits of the said president and cler2 #Anne'es
ICI, IC@,I and IC@3I, rec.$.
Dithout 1aiting for an resolution on their petition for relief from the order dated !ctober -, ,-.-, herein
petitioners filed on November <, ,-.-, 1ith the 9upreme Court, a notice of appeal #Anne' I(I, pp. 55@5-,
rec.$.
I
There is need of briefl restating basic concepts and principles 1hich underlie the issues posed b the
case at bar.
#,$ %n a democrac, the preservation and enhancement of the dignit and 1orth of the human personalit
is the central core as 1ell as the cardinal article of faith of our civili"ation. The inviolable character of man
as an individual must be Iprotected to the largest possible e'tent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the
citadel of his person.I
(

#3$ The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of libert, e8ualit and securit Iagainst the
assaults of opportunism, the e'pedienc of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the
scorn and derision of those 1ho have no patience 1ith general principles.I
3

%n the pith language of Mr. :ustice Robert :ac2son, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to 1ithdra1
Icertain sub*ects from the vicissitudes of political controvers, to place them beond the reach of
ma*orities and officials, and to establish them as leal principles to be applied b! the co"rts. !neAs rights
to life, libert and propert, to free speech, or free press, freedom of 1orship and assembl, and other
fundamental rights ma not be submitted to a vote7 the depend on the outcome of no elections.I
)
(as2i
proclaimed that Ithe happiness of the individual, not the 1ell@being of the 9tate, 1as the criterion b 1hich
its behaviour 1as to be *udged. His interests, not its po1er, set the limits to the authorit it 1as entitled to
e'ercise.I
5

#<$ The freedoms of e'pression and of assembl as 1ell as the right to petition are included among the
immunities reserved b the sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of :ustice Holmes, to protect the
ideas that 1e abhor or hate more than the ideas 1e cherish7 or as 9ocrates insinuated, not onl to protect
the minorit 1ho 1ant to tal2, but also to benefit the ma*orit 1ho refuse to listen.
*
And as :ustice
=ouglas cogentl stresses it, the liberties of one are the liberties of all7 and the liberties of one are not
safe unless the liberties of all are protected.
7

#0$ The rights of free e'pression, free assembl and petition, are not onl civil rights but also political
rights essential to manAs en*oment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment.
Thru these freedoms the citi"ens can participate not merel in the periodic establishment of the
government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as 1ell as in the
discipline of abusive public officers. The citi"en is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to the
appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as 1ell as for the imposition of
the la1ful sanctions on erring public officers and emploees.
#6$ Dhile the Bill of Rights also protects propert rights, the primac of human rights over propert rights
is recogni"ed.
+
Because these freedoms are Idelicate and vulnerable, as 1ell as supremel precious in
our societI and the Ithreat of sanctions ma deter their e'ercise almost as potentl as the actual
application of sanctions,I the Ineed breathing space to survive,I permitting government regulation onl
I1ith narro1 specificit.I
9

Propert and propert rights can be lost thru prescription7 but human rights are imprescriptible. %f human
rights are e'tinguished b the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the
po1er of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the trann of officials, of ma*orities,
of the influential and po1erful, and of oligarchs ; political, economic or other1ise.
%n the hierarch of civil liberties, the rights of free e'pression and of assembl occup a preferred position
as the are essential to the preservation and vitalit of our civil and political institutions7
1,
and such
priorit Igives these liberties the sanctit and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.I
11

The superiorit of these freedoms over propert rights is underscored b the fact that a mere reasonable
or rational relation bet1een the means emploed b the la1 and its ob*ect or purpose ; that the la1 is
neither arbitrar nor discriminator nor oppressive ; 1ould suffice to validate a la1 1hich restricts or
impairs propert rights.
1(
!n the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights
re8uires a more stringent criterion, namel e'istence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive
evil 1hich the 9tate has the right to prevent. 9o it has been stressed in the main opinion of Mr. :ustice
&ernando in #on$ales vs. Comelec and reiterated b the 1riter of the opinion in Imbon vs. %errer.
13
%t
should be added that Mr. :ustice Barredo in #on$ales vs. Comelec, s"pra, li2e :ustices =ouglas, Blac2
and Eoldberg in &.'. (imes Co. vs. S"llivan,
1)
believes that the freedoms of speech and of the press as
1ell as of peaceful assembl and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute 1hen directed against
public officials or I1hen e'ercised in relation to our right to choose the men and 1omen b 1hom 1e shall
be governed,I
15
even as Mr. :ustice Castro relies on the balancing@of@interests test.
1*
Chief :ustice
)inson is partial to the improbable danger rule formulated b Chief :udge (earned Hand, vi$. ; 1hether
the gravit of the evil, discounted b its improbabilit, *ustifies such invasion of free e'pression as is
necessar to avoid the danger.
17

%%
The respondent Court of %ndustrial Relations, after opining that the mass demonstration 1as not a
declaration of stri2e, concluded that b their Iconcerted act and the occurrence temporar stoppage of
1or2,I herein petitioners are guilt bargaining in bad faith and hence violated the collective bargaining
agreement 1ith private respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., inc.. 9et against and tested b
foregoing principles governing a democratic societ, such conclusion cannot be sustained. The
demonstration held petitioners on March 0, ,-.- before Malaca/ang 1as against alleged abuses of some
Pasig policemen, not against their emploer, herein private respondent firm, said demonstrate 1as purel
and completel an e'ercise of their freedom e'pression in general and of their right of assembl and
petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental agenc, the Chief
E'ecutive, again the police officers of the municipalit of Pasig. The e'ercise their civil and political rights
for their mutual aid protection from 1hat the believe 1ere police e'cesses. As matter of fact, it 1as the
dut of herein private respondent firm to protect herein petitioner +nion and its members fro the
harassment of local police officers. %t 1as to the interest herein private respondent firm to rall to the
defense of, and ta2e up the cudgels for, its emploees, so that the can report to 1or2 free from
harassment, ve'ation or peril and as conse8uence perform more efficientl their respective tas2s
enhance its productivit as 1ell as profits. Herein respondent emploer did not even offer to intercede for
its emploees 1ith the local police. Das it securing peace for itself at the e'penses of its 1or2ersK Das it
also intimidated b the local police or did it encourage the local police to terrori"e or ve' its 1or2ersK %ts
failure to defend its o1n emploees all the more 1ea2ened the position of its laborers the alleged
oppressive police 1ho might have been all the more emboldened thereb sub*ect its lo1l emploees to
further indignities.
%n see2ing sanctuar behind their freedom of e'pression 1ell as their right of assembl and of petition
against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the emploees and laborers of herein private respondent
firm 1ere fighting for their ver survival, utili"ing onl the 1eapons afforded them b the Constitution ;
the untrammelled en*oment of their basic human rights. The pretension of their emploer that it 1ould
suffer loss or damage b reason of the absence of its emploees from . oAcloc2 in the morning to 3
oAcloc2 in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merel of their propert rights. 9uch apprehended
loss or damage 1ould not spell the difference bet1een the life and death of the firm or its o1ners or its
management. The emploeesA pathetic situation 1as a star2 realit ; abused, harassment and
persecuted as the believed the 1ere b the peace officers of the municipalit. As above intimated, the
condition in 1hich the emploees found themselves vis)a)vis the local police of Pasig, 1as a matter that
vitall affected their right to individual e'istence as 1ell as that of their families. Material loss can be
repaired or ade8uatel compensated. The debasement of the human being bro2en in morale and
brutali"ed in spirit@can never be full evaluated in monetar terms. The 1ounds fester and the scars
remain to humiliate him to his ding da, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of 1hich is li2e
rubbing salt on bruised tissues.
As heretofore stated, the primac of human rights ; freedom of e'pression, of peaceful assembl and of
petition for redress of grievances ; over propert rights has been sustained.
1+
Emphatic reiteration of
this basic tenet as a coveted boon ; at once the shield and armor of the dignit and 1orth of the human
personalit, the all@consuming ideal of our enlightened civili"ation ; becomes !ur dut, if freedom and
social *ustice have an meaning at all for him 1ho toils so that capital can produce economic goods that
can generate happiness for all. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the
emploer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from emploment of the demonstrating emploees,
stretches undul the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is Ia potent means of inhibiting
speechI and therefore inflicts a moral as 1ell as mortal 1ound on the constitutional guarantees of free
e'pression, of peaceful assembl and of petition.
19

The collective bargaining agreement 1hich fi'es the 1or2ing shifts of the emploees, according to the
respondent Court %ndustrial Relations, in effect imposes on the 1or2ers the Idut ... to observe regular
1or2ing hours.I The strain construction of the Court of %ndustrial Relations that a stipulated 1or2ing shifts
den the 1or2ers the right to stage mass demonstration against police abuses during 1or2ing hours,
constitutes a virtual trann over the mind and life the 1or2ers and deserves severe condemnation.
Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground.
The mass demonstration staged b the emploees on March 0, ,-.- could not have been legall
en*oined b an court, such an in*unction 1ould be trenching upon the freedom e'pression of the 1or2ers,
even if it legall appears to be illegal pic2eting or stri2e.
(,
The respondent Court of %ndustrial Relations in
the case at bar concedes that the mass demonstration 1as not a declaration of a stri2e Ias the same not
rooted in an industrial dispute although there is concerted act and the occurrence of a temporar
stoppage 1or2.I #Anne' I&I, p. 06, rec.$.
The respondent firm claims that there 1as no need for all its emploees to participate in the
demonstration and that the suggested to the +nion that onl the first and regular shift from . A.M. to 3
P.M. should report for 1or2 in order that loss or damage to the firm 1ill be averted. This stand failed
appreciate the sine *"a non of an effective demonstration especiall b a labor union, namel the
complete unit of the +nion members as 1ell as their total presence at the demonstration site in order to
generate the ma'imum smpath for the validit of their cause but also immediatel action on the part of
the corresponding government agencies 1ith *urisdiction over the issues the raised against the local
police. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of e'pression.
(1
%f demonstrators are reduced b one@
third, then b that much the circulation of the issues raised b the demonstration is diminished. The more
the participants, the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rall. Moreover, the absence of
one@third of their members 1ill be regarded as a substantial indication of disunit in their ran2s 1hich 1ill
enervate their position and abet continued alleged police persecution. At an rate, the +nion notified the
compan t1o das in advance of their pro*ected demonstration and the compan could have made
arrangements to counteract or prevent 1hatever losses it might sustain b reason of the absence of its
1or2ers for one da, especiall in this case 1hen the +nion re8uested it to e'cuse onl the da@shift
emploees 1ho 1ill *oin the demonstration on March 0, ,-.- 1hich re8uest the +nion reiterated in their
telegram received b the compan at ->6? in the morning of March 0, ,-.-, the da of the mass
demonstration #pp. 03@0<, rec.$. There 1as a lac2 of human understanding or compassion on the part of
the firm in re*ecting the re8uest of the +nion for e'cuse from 1or2 for the da shifts in order to carr out its
mass demonstration. And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the
Pasig police, not against the compan, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the emploer, 1hich is as
unchristian as it is unconstitutional.
%%%
The respondent compan is the one guilt of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on the part of the
respondent firm to permit all its emploees and 1or2ers to *oin the mass demonstration against alleged
police abuses and the subse8uent separation of the eight #5$ petitioners from the service constituted an
unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of e'pression, freedom of assembl and freedom petition for
redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in 9ection 0#a@,$ in
relation to 9ection < of Republic Act No. 546, other1ise 2no1n as the %ndustrial Peace Act. 9ection < of
Republic Act No. 5 guarantees to the emploees the right Ito engage in concert activities for ... mutual aid
or protectionI7 1hile 9ection 0#a@,$ regards as an unfair labor practice for an emploer interfere 1ith,
restrain or coerce emploees in the e'ercise their rights guaranteed in 9ection Three.I
De repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged b the 1or2ers of the respondent
firm on March 0, ,-.-, 1as for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police abuses, denial of
1hich 1as interference 1ith or restraint on the right of the emploees to engage in such common action to
better shield themselves against such alleged police indignities. The insistence on the part of the
respondent firm that the 1or2ers for the morning and regular shift should not participate in the mass
demonstration, under pain of dismissal, 1as as heretofore stated, Ia potent means of inhibiting speech.I
((
9uch a concerted action for their mutual help and protection deserves at least e8ual protection as the
concerted action of emploees in giving publicit to a letter complaint charging ban2 president 1ith
immoralit, nepotism, favoritism an discrimination in the appointment and promotion of ban emploees.
(3

De further ruled in the Republic 9avings Ban2 case, s"pra, that for the emploees to come 1ithin the
protective mantle of 9ection < in relation to 9ection 0#a@,$ on Republic Act No. 546, Iit is not necessar
that union activit be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated,I as long as the concerted
activit is for the furtherance of their interests.
()

As stated clearl in the stipulation of facts embodied in the 8uestioned order of respondent Court dated
9eptember ,6, ,-.-, the compan, I1hile e'pressl ac2no1ledging, that the demonstration is an
inalienable right of the +nion guaranteed b the Constitution,I nonetheless emphasi"ed that Ian
demonstration for that matter should not undul pre*udice the normal operation of the companI and
I1arned the PBME! representatives that 1or2ers 1ho belong to the first and regular shifts, 1ho 1ithout
previous leave of absence approved b the Compan, particularl the officers present 1ho are the
organi"ers of the demonstration, 1ho shall fail to report for 1or2 the follo1ing morning #March 0, ,-.-$
shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the e'isting CBA and, therefore, 1ould be
amounting to an illegal stri2e #7$I #p. %%%, petitionerAs brief$. 9uch threat of dismissal tended to coerce the
emploees from *oining the mass demonstration. Ho1ever, the issues that the emploees raised against
the local police, 1ere more important to them because the had the courage to proceed 1ith the
demonstration, despite such threat of dismissal. The most that could happen to them 1as to lose a daAs
1age b reason of their absence from 1or2 on the da of the demonstration. !ne daAs pa means much
to a laborer, more especiall if he has a famil to support. Get, the 1ere 1illing to forego their one@da
salar hoping that their demonstration 1ould bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But
management 1as adamant in refusing to recogni"e the superior legitimac of their right of free speech,
free assembl and the right to petition for redress.
Because the respondent compan ostensibl did not find it necessar to demand from the 1or2ers proof
of the truth of the alleged abuses inflicted on them b the local police, it thereb concedes that the
evidence of such abuses should properl be submitted to the corresponding authorities having *urisdiction
over their complaint and to 1hom such complaint ma be referred b the President of the Philippines for
proper investigation and action 1ith a vie1 to disciplining the local police officers involved.
!n the other hand, 1hile the respondent Court of %ndustrial Relations found that the demonstration
Iparal"ed to a large e'tent the operations of the complainant compan,I the respondent Court of
%ndustrial Relations did not ma2e an finding as to the fact of loss actuall sustained b the firm. This
significant circumstance can onl mean that the firm did not sustain an loss or damage. %t did not present
evidence as to 1hether it lost e'pected profits for failure to compl 1ith purchase orders on that da7 or
that penalties 1ere e'acted from it b customers 1hose orders could not be filled that da of the
demonstration7 or that purchase orders 1ere cancelled b the customers b reason of its failure to deliver
the materials ordered7 or that its o1n e8uipment or materials or products 1ere damaged due to absence
of its 1or2ers on March 0, ,-.-. !n the contrar, the compan saved a si"able amount in the form of
1ages for its hundreds of 1or2ers, cost of fuel, 1ater and electric consumption that da. 9uch savings
could have ampl compensated for unreali"ed profits or damages it might have sustained b reason of
the absence of its 1or2ers for onl one da.
%)
Apart from violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembl as 1ell as the right to
petition for redress of grievances of the emploees, the dismissal of the eight #5$ leaders of the 1or2ers
for proceeding 1ith the demonstration and conse8uentl being absent from 1or2, constitutes a denial of
social *ustice li2e1ise assured b the fundamental la1 to these lo1l emploees. 9ection 6 of Article %% of
the Constitution imposes upon the 9tate Ithe promotion of social *ustice to insure the 1ell@being and
economic securit of all of the people,I 1hich guarantee is emphasi"ed b the other directive in 9ection .
of Article B%) of the Constitution that Ithe 9tate shall afford protection to labor ...I. Respondent Court of
%ndustrial Relations as an agenc of the 9tate is under obligation at all times to give meaning and
substance to these constitutional guarantees in favor of the 1or2ing man7 for other1ise these
constitutional safeguards 1ould be merel a lot of Imeaningless constitutional patter.I +nder the %ndustrial
Peace Act, the Court of %ndustrial Relations is en*oined to effect the polic of the la1 Ito eliminate the
causes of industrial unrest b encouraging and protecting the e'ercise b emploees of their right to self@
organi"ation for the purpose of collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral+ social and
economic ,ell)bein.I %t is most unfortunate in the case at bar that respondent Court of %ndustrial
Relations, the ver governmental agenc designed therefor, failed to implement this polic and failed to
2eep faith 1ith its avo1ed mission ; its raison d-etre ; as ordained and directed b the Constitution.
)
%t has been li2e1ise established that a violation of a constitutional right divests the court of *urisdiction7
and as a conse8uence its *udgment is null and void and confers no rights. Relief from a criminal
conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, ma be obtained through habeas corpus
proceedings even long after the finalit of the *udgment. Thus, habeas corpus is the remed to obtain the
release of an individual, 1ho is convicted b final *udgment through a forced confession, 1hich violated
his constitutional right against self@incrimination7
(5
or 1ho is denied the right to present evidence in his
defense as a deprivation of his libert 1ithout due process of la1,
(*
even after the accused has alread
served sentence for t1ent@t1o ears.
(7

Both the respondents Court of %ndustrial Relations and private firm trenched upon these constitutional
immunities of petitioners. Both failed to accord preference to such rights and aggravated the inhumanit
to 1hich the aggrieved 1or2ers claimed the had been sub*ected b the municipal police. Having violated
these basic human rights of the laborers, the Court of %ndustrial Relations ousted itself of *urisdiction and
the 8uestioned orders it issued in the instant case are a nullit. Recognition and protection of such
freedoms are imperative on all public offices including the courts
(+
as 1ell as private citi"ens and
corporations, the e'ercise and en*oment of 1hich must not be nullified b mere procedural rule
promulgated b the Court %ndustrial Relations e'ercising a purel delegate legislative po1er, 1hen even a
la1 enacted b Congress must ield to the untrammelled en*oment of these human rights. There is no
time limit to the e'ercise of the freedoms. The right to en*o them is not e'hausted b the deliver of one
speech, the printing of one article or the staging of one demonstration. %t is a continuing immunit to be
invo2ed and e'ercised 1hen e'igent and e'pedient 1henever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to
be denounced, inhumanities to be condemned. !ther1ise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights 1ould be
vitiated b rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then 1ould be reduced to a race
for time. And in such a contest bet1een an emploer and its laborer, the latter eventuall loses because
he cannot emplo the best an dedicated counsel 1ho can defend his interest 1ith the re8uired diligence
and "eal, bereft as he is of the financial resources 1ith 1hich to pa for competent legal services.
(+
-%
)%
The Court of %ndustrial Relations rule prescribes that motion for reconsideration of its order or 1rit should
filed 1ithin five #6$ das from notice thereof and that the arguments in support of said motion shall be filed
1ithin ten #,?$ das from the date of filing of such motion for reconsideration #9ec. ,.$. As above
intimated, these rules of procedure 1ere promulgated b the Court of %ndustrial Relations pursuant to a
legislative delegation.
(9

The motion for reconsideration 1as filed on 9eptember 3-, ,-.-, or seven #4$ das from notice on
9eptember 33, ,-.- of the order dated 9eptember ,6, ,-.- or t1o #3$ das late. Petitioners claim that
the could have filed it on 9eptember 35, ,-.-, but it 1as a 9unda.
=oes the mere fact that the motion for reconsideration 1as filed t1o #3$ das late defeat the rights of the
petitioning emploeesK !r more directl and concretel, does the inadvertent omission to compl 1ith a
mere Court of %ndustrial Relations procedural rule governing the period for filing a motion for
reconsideration or appeal in labor cases, promulgated pursuant to a legislative delegation, prevail over
constitutional rightsK The ans1er should be obvious in the light of the aforecited cases. To accord
supremac to the foregoing rules of the Court of %ndustrial Relations over basic human rights sheltered b
the Constitution, is not onl incompatible 1ith the basic tenet of constitutional government that the
Constitution is superior to an statute or subordinate rules and regulations, but also does violence to
natural reason and logic. The dominance and superiorit of the constitutional right over the aforesaid
Court of %ndustrial Relations procedural rule of necessit should be affirmed. 9uch a Court of %ndustrial
Relations rule as applied in this case does not implement or reinforce or strengthen the constitutional
rights affected,A but instead constrict the same to the point of nullifing the en*oment thereof b the
petitioning emploees. 9aid Court of %ndustrial Relations rule, promulgated as it 1as pursuant to a mere
legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is beond the authorit granted b the Constitution
and the la1. A period of five #6$ das 1ithin 1hich to file a motion for reconsideration is too short,
especiall for the aggrieved 1or2ers, 1ho usuall do not have the read funds to meet the necessar
e'penses therefor. %n case of the Court of Appeals and the 9upreme Court, a period of fifteen #,6$ das
has been fi'ed for the filing of the motion for re hearing or reconsideration #9ee. ,?, Rule 6,7 9ec. ,, Rule
637 9ec. ,, Rule 6., Revised Rules of Court$. The dela in the filing of the motion for reconsideration
could have been onl one da if 9eptember 35, ,-.- 1as not a 9unda. This fact accentuates the
unreasonableness of the Court of %ndustrial are concerned.
%t should be stressed here that the motion for reconsideration dated 9eptember 34, ,-.-, is based on the
ground that the order sought to be reconsidered Iis not in accordance 1ith la1, evidence and facts
adduced during the hearing,I and li2e1ise pras for an e'tension of ten #,?$ das 1ithin 1hich to file
arguments pursuant to 9ections ,6, ,. and ,4 of the Rules of the Court of %ndustrial Relations #Anne'
IEI, pp. 64@.?, rec.$7 although the arguments 1ere actuall filed b the herein petitioners on !ctober ,0,
,-.- #Anne' I%I, pp. 4?@4<, rec.$, long after the ,?@da period re8uired for the filing of such supporting
arguments counted from the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Herein petitioners received onl on
!ctober 35, ,-.- the resolution dated !ctober -, ,-.- dismissing the motion for reconsideration for
being pro forma since it 1as filed beond the reglementar period #Anne' I:I, pp. 40@46, rec.$
%t is true that De ruled in several cases that 1here a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, or 1here the
arguments in suppf such motion are filed beond the ,? da reglementar period provided for b the
Court of %ndustrial Relations rules, the order or decision sub*ect of
(9
-% reconsideration becomes final and
unappealable. But in all these cases, the constitutional rights of free e'pression, free assembl and
petition 1ere not involved.
%t is a procedural rule that generall all causes of action and defenses presentl available must be
specificall raised in the complaint or ans1er7 so that an cause of action or defense not raised in such
pleadings, is deemed 1aived. Ho1ever, a constitutional issue can be raised an time, even for the first
time on appeal, if it appears that the determination of the constitutional issue is necessar to a decision of
the case, the ver lis mota of the case 1ithout the resolution of 1hich no final and complete determination
of the dispute can be made.
3,
%t is thus seen that a procedural rule of Congress or of the 9upreme Court
gives 1a to a constitutional right. %n the instant case, the procedural rule of the Court of %ndustrial
Relations, a creature of Congress, must li2e1ise ield to the constitutional rights invo2ed b herein
petitioners even before the institution of the unfair labor practice charged against them and in their
defense to the said charge.
%n the case at bar, enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less b the organic la1, is a
most compelling reason to den application of a Court of %ndustrial Relations rule 1hich impinges on such
human rights.
3,
-%
%t is an accepted principle that the 9upreme Court has the inherent po1er to Isuspend its o1n rules or to
e'cept a particular case from its operation, 1henever the purposes of *ustice re8uire.I
3,
-- Mr. :ustice
Barredo in his concurring opinion in Estrada vs. Sto. Domino.
3,
-. reiterated this principle and added that
.nder this a"thorit!+ this Co"rt is enabled to cove ,ith all sit"ations ,itho"t concernin
itself abo"t proced"ral niceties that do not s*"are ,ith the need to do /"stice+ in an!
case+ ,itho"t f"rther loss of time+ provided that the riht of the parties to a f"ll da! in
co"rt is not s"bstantiall! impaired. (h"s+ this Co"rt ma! treat an appeal as a certiorari
and vice)versa. In other ,ords+ ,hen all the material facts are spread in the records
before .s+ and all the parties have been d"l! heard+ it matters little that the error of the
co"rt a *"o is of /"dment or of /"risdiction. 0e can then and there render the
appropriate /"dment. %s 1ithin the contemplation of this doctrine that as it is perfectl
legal and 1ithin the po1er of this Court to stri2e do1n in an appeal acts 1ithout or in
e'cess of *urisdiction or committed 1ith grave abuse of discretion, it cannot be beond
the admit of its authorit, in appropriate cases, to reverse in a certain proceed in an! error
of /"dment of a co"rt a *"o ,hich cannot be e1actl! cateori$ed as a fla, of /"risdiction.
%f there can be an doubt, 1hich % do not entertain, on 1hether or not the errors this Court
has found in the decision of the Court of Appeals are short of being *urisdiction nullities or
e'cesses, this Court 1ould still be on firm legal grounds should it choose to reverse said
decision here and no1 even if s"ch errors can be considered as mere mista2es of
/"dment or onl! as fa"lts in the e1ercise of /"risdiction+ so as to avoid the unnecessar
return of this case to the lo1er court for the sole purpose of pursuing the ordinar course
of an appeal. #Emphasis supplied$.
3,
-&
%nsistence on the application of the 8uestioned Court industrial Relations rule in this particular case at bar
1ould an unreasoning adherence to IProcedural nicetiesI 1hich denies *ustice to the herein laborers,
1hose basic human freedoms, including the right to survive, must be according supremac over the
propert rights of their emploer firm 1hich has been given a full hearing on this case, especiall 1hen, as
in the case at bar, no actual material damage has be demonstrated as having been inflicted on its
propert rights.
%f De can disregard our o1n rules 1hen *ustice re8uires it, obedience to the Constitution renders more
imperative the suspension of a Court of %ndustrial Relations rule that clash 1ith the human rights
sanctioned and shielded 1ith resolution concern b the specific guarantees outlined in the organic la1. %t
should be stressed that the application in the instant case 9ection ,6 of the Court of %ndustrial Relations
rules relied upon b herein respondent firm is unreasonable and therefore such application becomes
unconstitutional as it subverts the human rights of petitioning labor union and 1or2ers in the light of the
peculiar facts and circumstances revealed b the record.
The suspension of the application of 9ection ,6 of the Court of %ndustrial Relations rules 1ith reference to
the case at is also authori"ed b 9ection 3? of Common1ealth Act No. ,?<, the C.%.R. charter, 1hich
en*oins the Court of %ndustrial Relations to Iact according to *ustice and e8uit and substantial merits of
the case, 1ithout regard to technicalities or legal forms ...I
!n several occasions, De emphasi"ed this doctrine 1hich 1as re@stated b Mr. :ustice Barredo,
spea2ing for the Court, in the ,-4? case of 3apisanan+ etc. vs. 4amilton+ etc.+ et. al.+
3,
-e thus>
As to the point that the evidence being offered b the petitioners in the motion for ne1
trial is not Ine1l discovered,I as such term is understood in the rules of procedure for
the ordinar courts, De hold that such criterion is not binding upon the Court of %ndustrial
Relations. +nder 9ection 3? of Common1ealth Act No. ,?<, AThe Court of %ndustrial
Relations shall adopt its, rules or procedure and shall have such other po1ers as
generall pertain to a court of *ustice> Provided, ho1ever, That in the hearing,
investigation and determination of an 8uestion or controvers and in e'ercising an
duties and po1er under this Act, the Court shall act according to *ustice and e8uit and
substantial merits of the case, 1ithout regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not
be bound b an technical rules of legal evidence but ma inform its mind in such manner
as it ma deem *ust and e8uitable.A B! this provision the ind"strial co"rt is disenaed
from the riidit! of the technicalities applicable to ordinar! co"rts. Said co"rt is not even
restricted to the specific relief demanded b! the parties but ma issue such orders as
ma be deemed necessar or e'pedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or
dispelling an doubts that ma give rise to future disputes. #Ang Tiba v. C.%.R., E.R. No.
0.0-., &eb. ,4, ,-0?7 Manila Trading J 9uppl Co. v. Phil. (abor, 4, Phil. ,30.$ &or
these reasons, De believe that this provision is ample enough to have enabled the
respondent court to consider 1hether or not its previous ruling that petitioners constitute
a minorit 1as founded on fact, 1ithout regard to the technical meaning of ne1l
discovered evidence. ... #Alonso v. )illamor, ,. Phil. <,67 Chua Ciong v. Dhita2er, 0.
Phil. 645$. #emphasis supplied.$
To appl 9ection ,6 of the Court of %ndustrial Relations rules 1ith Ipedantic rigorI in the instant case is to
rule in effect that the poor 1or2ers, 1ho can ill@afford an alert competent la1er, can no longer see2 the
sanctuar of human freedoms secured to them b the fundamental la1, simpl because their counsel ;
erroneousl believing that he received a cop of the decision on 9eptember 3<, ,-.-, instead of
9eptember 33, ,-.- @ filed his motion for reconsideration 9eptember 3-, ,-.-, 1hich practicall is onl
one da late considering that 9eptember 35, ,-.- 1as a 9unda.
Man a time, this Court deviated from procedure technicalities 1hen the ceased to be instruments of
*ustice, for the attainment of 1hich such rules have been devised. 9ummari"ing the *urisprudence on this
score, Mr. :ustice &ernando, spea2ing for a unanimous Court in Palma vs. Oreta,
3,
-/ 9tated>
As 1as so aptl e'pressed b :ustice Moreland in Alonso v. 5illamor #,. Phil. <,6 L,-,?M.
The )illamor decision 1as cited 1ith approval in Register of =eeds v. Phil. Nat. Ban2, 50
Phil. .?? L,-0-M7 Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, ,?0 Phil. ,6. L,-65M and + v. +,
,030<, :une <?, ,-.,, 3 9CRA .46.$, decided as far bac2 as ,-,?, Itechnicalit. 1hen it
deserts its proper@office as an aid to *ustice and becomes its great hindrance and chief
enem, deserves scant consideration from courts.I #Ibid., p, <33.$ To that norm, this Court
has remained committed. The late :ustice Recto in Blanco v. Bernabe, #.< Phil. ,30
L,-<.M$ 1as of a similar mind. &or him the interpretation of procedural rule should never
Isacrifice the ends *ustice.I Dhile Iprocedural la1s are no other than technicalitiesI vie1
them in their entiret, Athe 1ere adopted not as ends themselves for the compliance 1ith
1hich courts have organi"ed and function, but as means conducive to the reali"ation the
administration of the la1 and of *ustice #Ibid., p.,,35$. De have remained steadfastl
opposed, in the highl rhetorical language :ustice &eli', to Ia sacrifice of substantial
rights of a litigant in altar of sophisticated technicalities 1ith impairment of the sacred
principles of *ustice.I #Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, ,?0 Phil. ,6., ,., L,-65M$. As
succinctl put b :ustice Ma2alintal, the Ishould give 1a to the realities of the
situation.I #+rbaan v. Calte', (@,6<4-, Aug. <,, ,-.3, 6 9CRA ,?,., ,?,-$. %n the latest
decision in point promulgated in ,-.5, #+dan v. Amon, #,-.5, 3< 9CRA citing McEntee v.
Manoto2, (@,0-.5, !ct. 34, ,-.,, < 9CRA 343.$ :ustice Naldivar 1as partial to an earlier
formulation of :ustice (abrador that rules of procedure Iare not to be applied in a ver
rigid, technical senseI7 but are intended Ito help secure substantial *ustice.I #Ibid., p. 50<$
...
3,
-0
Even if the 8uestioned Court of %ndustrial Relations orders and rule 1ere to be given effect, the dismissal
or termination of the emploment of the petitioning eight #5$ leaders of the +nion is harsh for a one@da
absence from 1or2. The respondent Court itself recogni"ed the severit of such a sanction 1hen it did not
include the dismissal of the other <-< emploees 1ho are members of the same +nion and 1ho
participated in the demonstration against the Pasig police. As a matter of fact, upon the intercession of the
9ecretar of (abor, the +nion members 1ho are not officers, 1ere not dismissed and onl the +nion itself
and its thirteen #,<$ officers 1ere specificall named as respondents in the unfair labor practice charge
filed against them b the firm #pp. ,.@3?, respondentAs Brief7 Anne'es IAI, IBI and ICI, pp. 3?@<?, rec.$.
Counsel for respondent firm insinuates that not all the 0?? or so emploee participated in the
demonstration, for 1hich reason onl the +nion and its thirteen #,<$ officers 1ere specificall named in
the unfair labor practice charge #p. 3?, respondentAs brief$. %f that 1ere so, then man, if not all, of the
morning and regular shifts reported for 1or2 on March 0, ,-.- and that, as a conse8uence, the firm
continued in operation that da and did not sustain an damage.
The appropriate penalt ; if it deserves an penalt at all ; should have been simpl to charge said
one@da absence against their vacation or sic2 leave. But to dismiss the eight #5$ leaders of the petitioner
+nion is a most cruel penalt, since as aforestated the +nion leaders depend on their 1ages for their dail
sustenance as 1ell as that of their respective families aside from the fact that it is a lethal blo1 to
unionism, 1hile at the same time strengthening the oppressive hand of the pett trants in the localities.
Mr. :ustice =ouglas articulated this pointed reminder>
The challenge to our liberties comes fre8uentl not from those 1ho consciousl see2 to
destro our sstem of Eovernment, but from men of good1ill ; good men 1ho allo1
their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that 1hat the propose to accomplish
involves an impairment of libert.
... The Motives of these men are often commendable. Dhat 1e must remember, ho1ever,
is that preservation of liberties does not depend on motives. A s"ppression of libert! has
the same effect ,hether the s"ppress or be a reformer or an o"tla,. (he onl! protection
aainst mis"ided $eal is a constant alertness of the infractions of the "arantees of
libert! contained in our Constitution. Each s"rrender of libert! to the demands of the
moment ma2es easier another+ larer s"rrender. (he battle over the Bill of 6ihts is a
never endin one.
... (he liberties of an! person are the liberties of all of "s.
... %n short, the Liberties of none are safe "nless the liberties of all are protected.
... B"t even if ,e sho"ld sense no daner to o"r o,n liberties+ even if ,e feel sec"re
beca"se ,e belon to a ro"p that is important and respected+ ,e m"st reconi$e that
o"r Bill of 6ihts is a code of fair pla! for the less fort"nate that ,e in all honor and ood
conscience m"st be observe.
31

The case at bar is 1orse.
Management has sho1n not onl lac2 of good@1ill or good intention, but a complete lac2 of smpathetic
understanding of the plight of its laborers 1ho claim that the are being sub*ected to indignities b the
local police, %t 1as more e'pedient for the firm to conserve its income or profits than to assist its
emploees in their fight for their freedoms and securit against alleged pett trannies of local police
officers. This is sheer opportunism. 9uch opportunism and e'pedienc resorted to b the respondent
compan assaulted the immunities and 1elfare of its emploees. %t 1as pure and implement selfishness,
if not greed.
!f happ relevance is the ,-.4 case of 6ep"blic Savins Ban2 vs. C.I.6.,
3(
1here the petitioner Ban2
dismissed eight #5$ emploees for having 1ritten and published Ia patentl libelous letter ... to the Ban2
president demanding his resignation on the grounds of immoralit, nepotism in the appointment and
favoritism as 1ell as discrimination in the promotion of ban2 emploees.I Therein, thru Mr. :ustice Castro,
De ruled>
%t 1ill avail the Ban2 none to gloat over this admission of the respondents. Assuming that
the latter acted in their individual capacities 1hen the 1rote the letter@charge the 1ere
nonetheless protected for the 1ere engaged in concerted activit, in the e'ercise of their
right of self organi"ation that includes concerted activit for mutual aid and protection,
#9ection < of the %ndustrial Peace Act ...$ This is the vie1 of some members of this Court.
&or, as has been aptl stated, the /oinin in protests or demands+ even b! a small ro"p
of emplo!ees+ if in f"rtherance of their interests as s"ch+ is a concerted activit! protected
b! the Ind"strial Peace Act. It is not necessar! that "nion activit! be involved or that
collective barainin be contemplated. #Annot., . A.(.R. 3d 0,. L,-0-M$.
''' ''' '''
%nstead of stifling criticism, the Ban2 should have allo1ed the respondents to air their
grievances.
''' ''' '''
The Ban2 defends its action b invo2ing its right to discipline for 1hat it calls the
respondentsA libel in giving undue publicit to their letter@charge. To be sure, the right of
self@organi"ation of emploees is not unlimited #Republic Aviation Corp. vs. N(RB <30
+.9. 4-< L,-06M$, as the right of the emploer to discharge for cause #Philippine
Education Co. v. +nion of Phil. Educ. Emploees, (@,<44<, April 3-, ,-.?$ is undenied.
The %ndustrial Peace Act does not touch the normal e'ercise of the right of the emploer
to select his emploees or to discharge them. %t is directed solel against the abuse of
that right b interfering 1ith the countervailing right of self organi"ation #Phelps =odge
Corp. v. N(RB <,< +.9. ,44 L,-0,M$...
''' ''' '''
%n the final sum and substance, this Co"rt is in "nanimit! that the Ban2-s cond"ct+
identified as an interference ,ith the emplo!ees- riht of self)orani$ation or as a
retaliator! action+ andOor as a refusal to bargain collectivel, constituted an unfair labor
practice 1ithin the meaning and intendment of section 0#a$ of the %ndustrial Peace Act.
#Emphasis supplied.$
33

%f free e'pression 1as accorded recognition and protection to fortif labor unionism in the Republic
9avings case, supra, 1here the complaint assailed the moralit and integrit of the ban2 president no
less, such recognition and protection for free speech, free assembl and right to petition are rendered all
the more *ustifiable and more imperative in the case at bar, 1here the mass demonstration 1as not
against the compan nor an of its officers.
DHERE&!RE, *udgement is hereb rendered>
#,$ setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of %ndustrial Relations dated
9eptember ,6 and !ctober -, ,-.-7 and
#3$ directing the re instatement of the herein eight #5$ petitioners, 1ith full bac2 pa from the date of their
separation from the service until re instated, minus one daAs pa and 1hatever earnings the might have
reali"ed from other sources during their separation from the service.
Dith costs against private respondent Philippine Blooming Compan, %nc.