CASE TITLE + RECIT-READY FACTS and ISSUE HELD

Doctrine/Catchy-
Phras
 RECIT-READY FACTS and ISSUE On rights: YES
PBMEO v Phil. PBMEO, a labor Philippine Blooming Mills The Bill of Rights is designed to
Blooming Mills union of employees Employees Organization preserve the ideals of liberty,
Co. (Human rights
from Philippine (PBMEO) is a legitimate equality, and security against
over property
rights) Blooming Mills Co., labor union of the the assaults of opportunism. Its
decided to stage a employees of Philippine purpose is to withdraw certain
mass demonstration Blooming Mills Co., Inc. subjects from the vicissitudes of
at Malacanang in PBMEO decided to stage political controversy and to
protest against a mass demonstration at establish them as legal
alleged abuses of the Malacanang in protest principles to be applied by the
Pasig police against alleged abuses of courts.
In two separate the Pasig police The freedom of expression, of
meetings before the The Company met with assembly, and the right to
activity, the Company the representatives of petition are included among the
Management PBMEO. PBMEO immunities reserved by the
acknowledged that confirmed to the sovereign people to protect the
the demonstration Company that they were ideas that we abhor or hate
was an inalienable holding a demonstration more than the ideas we cherish,
right of the union and it was likewise or not only to protect the
however a warning explained that it does not minority who want to talk, but
was given such that involve the Company. also to benefit the majority who
those who would fail The Company refuse to listen. The liberties of
to work on that Management informed one are the liberties of all; and
morning (particularly them that the the liberties of one are not safe
the 1st and regular demonstration was an unless the liberties of all are
shift workers) will be inalienable right of the protected.
violating the CBA as union but emphasized The rights of free expression,
it will amount to a that it should not unduly free assembly and petition, are
 strike. As a prejudice the companys not only civil rights but also
consequence, they normal operations. A political rights essential to
will be dismissed. warning was given that mans enjoyment of his life. Thru
PBMEO proceeded those who would fail to these freedoms the citizens can
with the work for the following participate not merely in the
demonstration which morning will be periodic establishment of the
led the Company to dismissed as it will government but also in the
charge Petitioners in violate the Collective administration of public affairs
the CIR for violating Bargaining Agreement as well as in the discipline of
RA 875 and the CBA. (CBA), amounting to abusive public officers.
Petitioners however illegal strike. While the Bill of Rights also
defend that it was a In another meeting, the protects property rights, the
valid exercise of their Management reiterated primacy of human rights over
freedom of speech that the 1st and regular property rights is recognized.
and it was not a shifts should not be These freedoms are delicate and
strike. required to participate vulnerable, as well as supremely
CIR found Petitioners but should work so as not precious in our society. Property
guilty of the case. to violate the CBA, and property rights can be lost
Moreover, it particularly on the no thru prescription; but human
dismissed their lockout-no strike rights are imprescriptible. If
motion for provision. If not, they human rights are extinguished
reconsideration for shall be dismissed. by the passage of time, the Bill
being filed beyond PBMEO proceeded with of Rights is a useless attempt to
the reglementary the demonstration limit the power of the
period. The despite the Companys government and ceases to be a
Petitioners in turn pleas pertaining to the 1st shield against tyranny.
filed for a petition for shift workers. In the hierarchy of civil liberties,
relief from the order, The Company charged the rights of free expression and
 as well as filed the Petitioners in the Court of assembly occupy a preferred
present appeal in the of Industrial Relations position as they are essential to
SC. (CIR) for violating RA the preservation and vitality of
875 and the CBA. In our civil and political
ISSUE: W/N the defense, Petitioners institutions.
participation of the 1st contend that: they gave The superiority of these
shift workers was a prior notice, it was a freedoms over property rights is
valid exercise of
valid exercise of the underscored by the fact that a
constitutional rights?
freedom of speech, and it mere reasonable relation
HELD: was not a strike. between the means employed by
YES. CIR held that Petitioners the law and its object or purpose
The freedom of were guilty of bargaining would suffice to validate a law
expression, of in bad faith, perpetrating which restricts property rights.
assembly, and the unfair labor practice, and On the other hand, a
right to petition are as a consequence, lost constitutional or valid
included among the their status as infringement of human rights
immunities reserved employees. requires a more stringent
by the sovereign CIR likewise dismissed criterion, namely existence of a
people. They are not their motion for grave and immediate danger of
only civil rights but reconsideration for being a substantive evil which the
also political rights filed beyond the State has the right to prevent.
essential to mans reglementary period as it The demonstration was purely
enjoyment of his life. was to be filed within 5 and completely an exercise of
While the Bill of days from the receipt of their freedom of expression in
Rights also protects the decision general and of their right of
property rights, the Petitioners filed a petition assembly and of petition for
primacy of human for relief from the order redress of grievances. As a
as the failure to file was matter of fact, it was the duty of
 rights over property due to excusable the Company to protect the
rights is recognized. negligence and honest Union from the harassment of
These freedoms are mistake. But without local police officers. It was to
precious and waiting for any the interest of the Company to
imprescriptible, for if resolution, the present rally to the defense of its
not, they would be appeal was filed in the employees so that they can
useless against the Supreme Court. report to work free from
powers of the harassment and as a
government and consequence perform more
tyranny. efficiently.
In the hierarchy of ISSUE: The pretension that it would
civil liberties, the W/N the participation of the suffer loss or damage because of
rights of free 1st shift workers was a valid the absence is a plea for the
expression and of exercise of constitutional preservation merely of their
assembly occupy a rights? property rights. Material loss
preferred position as can be repaired or adequately
they are essential to W/N PBMEO was denied compensated. The debasement
the preservation and due process in the denial of of the human beingbroken in
vitality of our civil their motion for morale and brutalized in spirit
and political reconsideration? can never be fully evaluated in
institutions. monetary terms.
The pretension that The Company is guilty of unfair
the Company would labor practice. The refusal
suffer loss or damage constituted an unconstitutional
is a plea for the restraint on their freedom of
preservation of their expression, assembly, and
property rights. redress. The insistence on not
Material loss can be allowing the participation of
 repaired or morning workers, under pain of
adequately dismissal, was a potent means of
compensated. The inhibiting speech
debasement of the
human being can On due process: YES
never be fully The exercise and enjoyment of
evaluated in these rights must not be
monetary terms. nullified by a mere procedural
Its refusal rule promulgated by the CIR,
constituted an exercising a purely delegated
unconstitutional legislative power, when even a
restraint on their law enacted by Congress must
freedom of yield to the untrammeled
expression, assembly, enjoyment of these human
and redress as it was rights.
inhibiting speech. There is no time limit to the
exercise of these freedoms. The
right to enjoy them is not
exhausted by the delivery of one
speech, the printing of one
article or the staging of one
demonstration. It is a continuing
immunity. Otherwise, these
guarantees in the Bill of Rights
would be vitiated by a rule on
procedure prescribing the
period for appeal.
To accord supremacy to the
 foregoing rules of the CIR over
basic human rights sheltered by
the Constitution, is not only
incompatible with the basic
tenet of constitutional
government but also does
violence to natural reason and
logic. Dominance and
superiority of such over
procedural rule of necessity
should be affirmed.
A constitutional issue can be
raised any time even for the first
time on appeal, if it appears that
the determination of the
constitutional issue is necessary
to a decision of the case, the
very lis mota of the case. A
procedural rule gives way to a
constitutional right.

Barredo (dissenting)
The case does not allow for the
resolution of any constitutional
issue. Furthermore,
constitutional rights may be
protected by the courts only
when their jurisdiction over the
 subject matter is unquestionably
established.
No doubt no constitutional right
can be sacrificed in the altar of
procedural technicalities,
however, this principle is applied
to annul or set aside final
judgments only in case where
there is a possible denial of due
process.
Petitioners do not claim a denial
of due process in denying their
motion for reconsideration.
Neither in the petition nor
pleading is found assailing
decision as null and void
because it denied their
constitutional liberty.
Petitioners themselves alleged
the flaw as a mere error of
judgment rather than that of
jurisdiction.
The rules fixing periods for the
finality of judgment are in a
sense more substantive than
procedural in their real nature,
for in their operation they have
the effect of either creating or
 terminating rights pursuant to
the terms of the particular
judgment concerned. And the
fact that the court that rendered
such final judgment is deprived
of jurisdiction or authority to
alter or modify the same
enhances such substantive
character. On the other hand,
procrastination or failure to act
on time is unquestionably a form
of abandonment. The most
valuable right of a party may be
lost by prescription because
public policy demands that
rights must be asserted in time,
as otherwise they can be
waived.

Teehankee (Separate concurring)

CIRs order manifested grave
abuse of discretion in fact and in
law.
There could not be, in fact,
bargaining in bad faith nor
unfair labor practice as the
Company conceded that
demonstration was an
inalienable right. There could
not be, in law, a willful violation
of the CBA as the mass
demonstration was not a
declaration of strike.