Scribd
Upload
69 views2 pages

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. PBM Co. Inc

The Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization planned to stage a demonstration against alleged police abuses. The company asked them to cancel it, threatening to fire workers who participated. When the demonstration went ahead, PBMEO officers were dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of constitutional rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and petition, as these human rights are more important than the company's property rights. While property rights are protected, infringing on human rights requires a higher standard of justification than impairing property rights. The company could have simply deducted the one day of absence from leave time instead of firing the union officers.

Uploaded by

Angeline Bo
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
69 views2 pages

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. PBM Co. Inc

The Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization planned to stage a demonstration against alleged police abuses. The company asked them to cancel it, threatening to fire workers who participated. When the demonstration went ahead, PBMEO officers were dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of constitutional rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and petition, as these human rights are more important than the company's property rights. While property rights are protected, infringing on human rights requires a higher standard of justification than impairing property rights. The company could have simply deducted the one day of absence from leave time instead of firing the union officers.

Uploaded by

Angeline Bo
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/ 2

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.

(G.R. No. L-31195)

June 5, 1973

FACTS:

On March 4, 1969, Philippine Blooming Mills 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 about PBMEO's plans, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc. called for a meeting
with the leaders of the union. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by
PBMEO, which noted that the demonstration was not a strike against the company. PBMEO
stated that the planned demonstration was an exercise of the laborers' inalienable constitutional
right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of
grievances against police indignities.

The company asked PBMEO to cancel the demonstration, noting that the same would constitute
an interruption of the normal course of their business which may result in loss of revenue. The
company also threatened the workers that they would lose their jobs if they pushed through with
the demonstration.

A second meeting took place where the company stressed that those from the 1st and regular
shifts should not absent themselves to participate in the demonstration, otherwise, they would
be dismissed.

Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the demonstration took place. The officers of PBMEO
were eventually dismissed by the company for violation of the "No Strike and No Lockout"
clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether the dismissal of PBMEO officers from their employment constituted a violation of their
constitutional right to freedom of expression, assembly, and petition. -- YES.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that PBMEO needed even the first and regular shift workers for the
demonstration as their complete presence in the mass demonstration would generate the
maximum sympathy for the validity of their cause and immediate action on the part of
corresponding agencies.

The company’s contention that it would suffer loss by reason of the absence of the employees
from 6 AM – 2 PM is a plea for the preservation of merely their property rights. The appropriate
penalty that could have been imposed by the company – if it deserves any penalty at all –
should have been simply to charge the one-day absence of the workers against their vacation or
sick leaves.
While the Bill of Rights protects property rights, human rights such as freedom of expression,
assembly, and petition, are supreme over property rights. Infringement on human right requires
a more stringent criterion for validation, as compared to impairment of property rights.

The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also
political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and
complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic
establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public
affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive public officer.

The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere
reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or
purpose that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to
validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or
valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a
grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.

You might also like