a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
PBM EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (PBMEO), Petitioner
PBM CO. INC. , Respondent
Petitioner, PBMEO is a legitimate labor union composed of the respondent corporation. The officers and members of PBMEO decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacanang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police. Petitioner confirmed that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. PBMEO explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with the Management. The Management informed the petitioner that the demonstration is an alienable right of the union guaranteed by the constitution but emphasized that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the company. Workers who without previous leave of absence approved, particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to work the following morning shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike. On March 4, 1969 respondent filed a charge against petitioner for violation of RA 875 (Industrial Peace Act) and of the CBA providing for No Strike and No Lockout. Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal.
Whether or not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble violated.
Yes. 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. This is not present in the case. It was to the interest herein private respondent to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged prosecution of local officialdom, the employees and labourers of herein were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution