Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31195)
Key Individuals and Context
• Petitioner Union: Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) and its officers Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Rodulfo Munsod.
• Respondent Employer: Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
• Respondent Tribunal: Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador.
• Purpose of Demonstration: Protest alleged abuses by Pasig Police Department.
Petitioner, a duly constituted labor union under the 1935 Constitution’s Bill of Rights (free speech, assembly, petition), informed the employer of a March 4, 1969 mass demonstration at Malacañang. The union sought to include workers of all shifts, including the 6 AM–2 PM first shift, in the exercise of their constitutional rights to petition the Chief Executive against police abuses.
Applicable Law
• 1935 Philippine Constitution – freedoms of speech, peaceful assembly, petition.
• Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act) – Section 3 (right to concerted activities for mutual aid or protection); Section 4(a-1) (unfair labor practice: employer interference, restraint or coercion).
• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Article XXIV (“No Lockout – No Strike”).
Key Dates
• March 2–3, 1969: Company learns of demonstration; two meetings held with PBMEO representatives; employer warns first-shift participants of dismissal if absent.
• March 4, 1969: Demonstration proceeds; employer files ULP charge same day.
• April 18, 1969: Acting Prosecutors file formal complaint.
• May 9, 1969: Petitioners file answer.
• September 15, 1969: Associate Judge Salvador finds petitioners guilty of bad-faith bargaining; orders their dismissal as employees.
• September 29, 1969: Petitioners file motion for reconsideration (two days late under CIR rules).
• October 9, 1969: CIR en banc dismisses motion as pro forma for being filed out of time.
• October 31, 1969: Petitioners apply for relief from dismissal of reconsideration; November 3 notice of appeal filed.
• June 5, 1973: Supreme Court decision under 1935 Constitution.
Facts and Procedural History
1. Union notified employer on March 1, 1969 of a planned March 4 demonstration.
2. On March 3, the company convened two meetings; union panel confirmed demonstration and insisted full participation. Employer acknowledged constitutional right but warned that first-shift absences without approved leave would violate the CBA and be deemed an illegal strike, meriting dismissal.
3. On March 4, despite a reiterated cable requesting excusal of first-shift employees, about 400 workers joined the demonstration; no evidence was presented by the company of actual losses.
4. The employer filed unfair labor practice charges under RA 875 Section 4(a-6) in relation to Sections 13, 14 and 15, and CBA “no-strike” clause.
5. After stipulation of facts, CIR found the union guilty of bad-faith bargaining and dismissed eight officers from employment. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was dismissed as out of time.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
• Demonstration is not directed against the employer but against government abuse of police power; it is a valid exercise of constitutional freedoms (speech, assembly, petition) and Section 3 RA 875 right to concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.
• Employer’s warning and subsequent dismissal of petitioners constituted interference, restraint and coercion in violation of Section 4(a-1) of RA 875 – an unfair labor practice.
• CIR’s finding of “bargaining in bad faith” and use of the CBA to bar constitutionally protected action “stretches unduly” the CBA’s scope and punishes the exercise of fundamental rights.
• Procedural rules of the CIR (five-day period for motions, ten-day period for arguments) cannot nullify or suppress constitutional rights; dismissal of reconsideration motion and sanction of petitioners for excusable one-day delay due to Sunday is unreasonable, arbitrary and conflicts with constitutional guarantee and legislative mandate under Commonwe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31195)
Facts and Parties
- The Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is the certified labor union of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
- Petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are union officers and members.
- On March 1, 1969, PBMEO decided to hold a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969 in protest of alleged Pasig police abuses.
- The Union notified the Company in advance of its planned demonstration.
Meetings with Management
- March 3, 1969, 11:00 A.M.: First meeting at the Company canteen attended by management (Arthur L. Ang, Atty. C.S. de Leon Jr., department heads) and Union panel (Padrigano, Roxas, de Leon, Paciente, Vacuna, Pagcu).
- Management asked the Union to confirm or deny the demonstration; Union confirmed and stated it was unrelated to any dispute with the Company.
- Management acknowledged the constitutional right to demonstrate but warned that first and regular shift workers who failed to report to work would be dismissed as committing an illegal strike under the existing CBA “No Lockout – No Strike” clause.
- March 3, 1969, 5:00 P.M.: Second meeting reiterated the warning; the Union panel (Tolentino, Munsod, Pagcu, Padrigano) said it was too late to change the plan.
- March 4, 1969, 9:50 A.M.: Adviser Wilfredo Ariston cabled the Company to excuse day‐shift employees for the demonstration.
The Mass Demonstration
- Approximately 400 Union members, including first‐shift workers, proceeded with the Malacañang demonstration on March 4, 1969.
- First and regular shift workers were absent from 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., causing a temporary stoppage of operations.
Unfair Labor Practice Charge
- March 4, 1969: The Company filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) an unfair labor practice charge against petitioners and first‐shift employees.
- Alleged violations: Section 4(a‐6) in relation to Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Republic Act 875 and the CBA’s “No Lockout – No Strike” provision.
- Charge supported by the joint affidavit of Arthur L. Ang and Atty. Cesareo S. de Leon Jr.
- April 18, 1969: A formal complaint was filed by Acting Chief Prosecutor Antonio T. Tirona and Acting Prosecutor Linda P. Ilagan.
Proceedings and Court Orders
- May 9, 1969: Petitioners answered, asserting prior notice, constitutional freedoms