Doctrine of Preferred Freedom (Hierarchy of Rights)
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No.
L-31195, 5 June 1973, Makasiar, Jr. [J].
Facts: The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate
labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and 8
petitioners are officers and members of the petitioner Union. Petitioners claim that on March 1,
1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest
against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers in the 1 st—3rd shifts
(6am-2pm, 7am-4am, 8am-5pm); and that they informed the respondent Company of their
proposed demonstration. Despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers
should not be required to participate in the demonstration, a charge against petitioners and other
employees who composed the first shift, charging them with a "violation of Section 4(a)-6 in relation
to Sections 13 and 14, as well as Section 15, all of Republic Act No. 875, and of the CBA providing for
'No Strike and No Lockout.
The respondent Court, (CIR), ruled against herein petitioner, PBMEO, guilty of bargaining in
bad faith and found the 8 officers as directly responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor
practice and were, as a consequence, considered to have lost their status as employees of the
respondent Company. Further, motion for reconsideration by PBMEO was denied due to the
prescription period of the filing of the said motion (procedural basis). Hence, this petition.
Issues: Whether PBMEO violate its CBA’s “no-strike, no lockout” provision
Whether the human rights—freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for
redress of grievances—of the petitioners have been violated
Held: No, workers who joined a demonstration against police abuses did not violate CBA "no-strike
no-lockout" provision. Tested against the foregoing principles, the conclusion of the Court of
Industrial Relations that the petitioners by their "concerted act and the occurrence of a temporary
stoppage of Work," are guilty of bargaining in bad faith and hence violated the collective bargaining
agreement cannot be sustained. The demonstration held by petitioners on March 4, 1969 before
Malacanang was against alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer, herein
private respondent firm. Said demonstration was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom
of expression in general and of their right of assembly and of petition for redress of grievances in
particular before appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, against the police officers
of the municipality of Pasig.
Yes, freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances—
of the petitioners have been violated by the respondent Court and Company. 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… In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and
worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our
civilization. Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free 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."
Fallo: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
(1) setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations
dated September 15 and October 9, 1969; and
(2) directing the reinstatement of the herein 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 private respondent Philippine Blooming Company, Inc.
