Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    PBMEO vs. PBM Co - Inc. 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

    Uploaded by

    Baisy Villanoza
    The document discusses a case where workers were dismissed for participating in a demonstration without permission. The court ruled that dismissing the workers for exercising their freedom of speech was unconstitutional. While companies have property rights, human rights are more important. The court ordered the workers be reinstated with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PBMEO vs. PBM Co - Inc. 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

    Uploaded by

    Baisy Villanoza
    4 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where workers were dismissed for participating in a demonstration without permission. The court ruled that dismissing the workers for exercising their freedom of speech was unconstitutional. While companies have property rights, human rights are more important. The court ordered the workers be reinstated with back pay.

    Original Title

    PBMEO vs. PBM Co.Inc. 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where workers were dismissed for participating in a demonstration without permission. The court ruled that dismissing the workers for exercising their freedom of speech was unconstitutional. While companies have property rights, human rights are more important. The court ordered the workers be reinstated with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views1 page

    PBMEO vs. PBM Co - Inc. 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

    Uploaded by

    Baisy Villanoza
    The document discusses a case where workers were dismissed for participating in a demonstration without permission. The court ruled that dismissing the workers for exercising their freedom of speech was unconstitutional. While companies have property rights, human rights are more important. The court ordered the workers be reinstated with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    51 SCRA 189 (1973) / G.R. No.

    L-31195 June 5, 1973


    PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION, petitioners, vs.
    PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC., and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

    Facts:
    On March 1 1969, PBMEO resolved to act in a mass demonstration at Malacañang to protest against
    alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated by the workers in the first to third shift. They advised
    the respondents of their proposed demonstration on March 4, 1969. Respondents called the PBMEO
    officers for a meeting after knowing about the proposed demonstration. During the meeting, the Union
    confirmed the planned demonstration and informed the company that the said demonstration has nothing
    to do with the PBM Co. Inc. because the Union has no disagreement with the company and it was just for
    the laborers’ unassailable constitutional right to freedom of speech.
    Respondents warned the PBMEO representatives that workers without leave of absence approved by the
    respondents, mainly, the officers present and who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail
    to report for work shall be dismissed. Another meeting was convened by PBM Co. Inc. it restated and
    requested to the PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the demonstration, those from
    the first and regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate, otherwise, they would be
    dismissed. The rally took place and the officers of the PBMEO were eventually discharged for a violation
    of the ‘No Strike and No Lockout’ clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. The lower court
    decided in favor of the respondents and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad
    faith. The Court of Industrial Relations denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners for being
    filed beyond the reglementary period.

    Issue: Whether the respondents’ act of infering that the petitioners acted in bad faith for proceeding with
    the demonstration and dimissing them from the company is unconstitutional.

    Ruling: No. The contention of the respondent that it would suffer loss or damage because of the
    absence of its employees is an appeal for the preservation of their property rights. Such realized loss or
    damage would not spell the difference between the life and death of the firm. Though the Bill of Rights
    also protects property rights, the importance of human rights over property rights is accepted. Because
    these freedoms are elusive and vulnerable, and supremely valuable in our society and the risk of
    sanctions may prevent their exercise almost as the actual application of sanctions, they need a break or
    pause to pull through.

    Analysis: Respondent has shown not only a lack of good intention but a complete lack of compassionate
    understanding of the predicament of its laborers who claim that they are being subjected to indignities by
    the local police. It was more convenient for the PBM Co. Inc. to conserve its profits than to assist its
    employees in their contest for their freedoms and security against alleged oppressions of local police
    officers. This is absolute opportunism that resorted to by the respondent: assaulted the immunities and
    welfare of its employees.

    Conclusion: Judgment is rendered, setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent
    Court of Industrial Relations dated September 15 and October 9, 1969, and directing the
    reinstatement of the eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay from the date of their separation from the
    service until reinstated, minus one day's pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from
    other sources during their separation from the service. With costs against respondent PBM Co. Inc.

    You might also like