PHILIPPINE

BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORG VS PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO. INC.

G.R. No. L-31195
June 5, 1973
Prepared By: Jessica Marie Agra

FACTS:

The Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO), a labor union,
conducted a strike in front of Malacanang against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.

Before the mass demonstration, petitioners, Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano,
Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Pacientee, Bonifacio Vacuna Benjamin Pagcu and
Rodulfo Munsod, informed the respondent company regarding their proposed
demonstration.

During the first meeting between the PBMEO employees and the company, the latter
asked to cancel the strike because it would interrupt the normal course of business of the
company. But the employees contended that the strike was their constitutional right to
freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances. The
employees also added that the strike is not against the company but rather against the Pasig
police.

After that, in another meeting, the company allowed such strike to ensue on the
condition that the first shift of employees would not continue with the strike and come to
work, without which such workers would be terminated by the company on the basis of
their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provides a clause of No Strike, No
Lockout.

The labor union decided to push through with the strike and the company terminated the
heads of the PBMEO union.

The Court of Industrial Relations decided in favor of the company where the petitioners
were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and that their motion for reconsideration was
late by 2 days submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations.

Petitioners filed for a review of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Phil Blooming validly terminated the petitioners on the basis of a
violation of the CBA of the company
2. Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations dismissal of the motion for
reconsideration is to be reversed

HELD:

No, the company did not validly terminate the petitioners on the basis of the violation of
the CBA of the company. The decision of the CIR must be reversed. The main issue in this
case is the hierarchy of rights. While the Bill of Rights protects property rights, the primacy
of human rights over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the

rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position because they are
essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions. Also, the
strike was not against the company, but against the Pasig police, which does not violate the
CBA of the company.

WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered:

Setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations and directing the reinstatement of the 8 petitioners, with full back pay from the
date of their separation from the service until reinstated, minus one days pay and whatever
earnings they might have realized from other sources during their separation from the
service. With costs against the private respondent Philippine Blooming Company Inc.