001 philippine blooming mills eo v philippine blooming mills co and cir

7/25/2019 001 Philippine Blooming Mills EO v Philippine Blooming Mills Co and CIR

1/67

001 Philippine Blooming Mills EO v Philippine Blooming Mills Co and CIR

G.R. No. L-3119 !"ne # 19$3

P%ILIPPINE BLOOMING MILL& EMPLO'MEN( ORG)NI*)(ION# NIC)NOR

(OLEN(INO# +LORENCIO# P),RIG)NO R+INO# RO)& M)RI)NO ,E LEON#

)&ENCION P)CIEN(E# BONI+)CIO /)CN)# BEN!)MIN P)GC and RO,L+OMN&O,# petitioners,

vs.

P%ILIPPINE BLOOMING MILL& CO.# INC. and COR( O+ IN,&(RI)L

REL)(ION respondents.

L.S. Osorio & P.B. Castillo and J.C. Espinas & Associates for petitioners.

Demetrio B. Salem & Associates for private respondent.

M))&I)R# J.:

The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (hereinafter referred

to as PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union omposed of the employees of the

respondent Philippine Blooming Mills !o., "n., and petitioners #ianor Tolentino,

$lorenio Padrigano, %ufino %o&as, Mariano de 'eon, senion Paiente, Bonifaio

auna, Ben*amin Pagu and %odulfo Munsod are offiers and members of thepetitioner +nion.

Petitioners laim that on Marh , --, they deided to stage a mass demonstration

at Malaa/ang on Marh 0, --, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig polie,

to be partiipated in by the 1or2ers in the first shift (from .M. to 3 P.M.) as 1ell as

those in the regular seond and third shifts (from 4 .M. to 0 P.M. and from 5 .M. to 6

P.M., respetively)7 and that they informed the respondent !ompany of their proposed

demonstration.

The 8uestioned order dated 9eptember 6, --, of ssoiate :udge :oa8uin M.

9alvador of the respondent !ourt reprodued the follo1ing stipulation of fats of the

parties ; parties ;

?? M@


2/67

3>?? PM) 1or2ers as 1ell as those 1or2ing in the regular shifts (4>?? .M.

to 0>?? PM and 5>?? M to 6>?? PM) in the morning of Marh 0, --7

0. That a meeting 1as alled by the !ompany on Marh ?? .M. at the !ompanyAs anteen, and those present 1ere> for the

!ompany> () Mr. rthur '. ng (3) tty. 9. de 'eon, :r., ( #ianor Tolentino, %odolfo Munsod, Ben*amin Pagu

and $lorenio Padrigano. "n this afternoon meeting of Marh


3/67

partiularly rtile "> #O 'O!CO+T ; #O 9T%"CEA. ll those 1ho 1ill

not follo1 this 1arning of the !ompany shall be dismiss7 =e 'eon reiterated

the !ompanyAs 1arning that the offiers shall be primarily liable being the

organizers of the mass demonstration. The union panel ountered that it

1as rather too late to hange their plans inasmuh as the Malaa/ang

demonstration 1ill be held the follo1ing morning7 and

5. That a ertain Mr. Dilfredo riston, adviser of PBMEO sent a ablegram

to the !ompany 1hih 1as reeived ->6? .M., Marh 0, --, the

ontents of 1hih are as follo1s> A%E"TE%T"# %EF+E9T E!+9E =G

9H"$T EMP'OGEE9 :O"#"# =EMO#9T%T"O# M%!H 0, --.A

(Pars.


4/67

have lost their status as employees of the respondent !ompany (nne& I$I, pp. 03@6,

re.)

Herein petitioners laim that they reeived on 9eptember 3


5/67

motion for reonsideration on time 1as due to e&usable negligene and honest

mista2e ommitted by the president of the petitioner +nion and of the offie ler2 of

their ounsel, attahing thereto the affidavits of the said president and ler2 (nne&es

ICI, IC@I and IC@3I, re.).

Dithout 1aiting for any resolution on their petition for relief from the order dated

Otober -, --, herein petitioners filed on #ovember


6/67

ogently stresses it, the liberties of one are the liberties of all7 and the liberties of one

are not safe unless the liberties of all are proteted. $

(0) The rights of free e&pression, free assembly and petition, are not only ivil rights but

also politial rights essential to manAs en*oyment of his life, to his happiness and to his

full and omplete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the itizens an partiipate not

merely in the periodi establishment of the government through their suffrage but alsoin the administration of publi affairs as 1ell as in the disipline of abusive publi

offiers. The itizen is aorded these rights so that he an appeal to the appropriate

governmental offiers or agenies for redress and protetion as 1ell as for the

imposition of the la1ful santions on erring publi offiers and employees.

(6) Dhile the Bill of %ights also protets property rights, the primay of human rights

over property rights is reognized.4Beause these freedoms are Ideliate and

vulnerable, as 1ell as supremely preious in our soietyI and the Ithreat of santions

may deter their e&erise almost as potently as the atual appliation of santions,I they

Ineed breathing spae to survive,I permitting government regulation only I1ith narro1

speifiity.I9

Property and property rights an be lost thru presription7 but human rights are

impresriptible. "f human rights are e&tinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of

%ights is a useless attempt to limit the po1er of government and eases to be an

effiaious shield against the tyranny of offiials, of ma*orities, of the influential and

po1erful, and of oligarhs ; politial, eonomi or other1ise.

"n the hierarhy of ivil liberties, the rights of free e&pression and of assembly oupy a

preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our ivil and

politial institutions7 10and suh priority Igives these liberties the santity and the

santion not permitting dubious intrusions.I 11

The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is undersored by the fat that a

mere reasonable or rational relation bet1een the means employed by the la1 and its

ob*et or purpose ; that the la1 is neither arbitrary nor disriminatory nor oppressive; 1ould suffie to validate a la1 1hih restrits or impairs property rights. 1On the

other hand, a onstitutional or valid infringement of human rights re8uires a more

stringent riterion, namely e&istene of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive

evil 1hih the 9tate has the right to prevent. 9o it has been stressed in the main

opinion of Mr. :ustie $ernando in #on$ales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the 1riter of

the opinion in Imbon vs. %errer. 13"t should be added that Mr. :ustie Barredo

in #on$ales vs. Comelec, s"pra, li2e :usties =ouglas, Bla2 and oldberg in .'.


7/67

(imes Co. vs. S"llivan, 12believes that the freedoms of speeh and of the press as 1ell

as of peaeful assembly and of petition for redress of grievanes are absolute 1hen

direted against publi offiials or I1hen e&erised in relation to our right to hoose the

men and 1omen by 1hom 1e shall be governed,I 1even as Mr. :ustie !astro relies

on the balaning@of@interests test. 1!hief :ustie inson is partial to the improbable

danger rule formulated by !hief :udge 'earned Hand, vi$. ; 1hether the gravity of the

evil, disounted by its improbability, *ustifies suh invasion of free e&pression as isneessary to avoid the danger. 1$

""

The respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations, after opining that the mass

demonstration 1as not a delaration of stri2e, onluded that by their Ionerted at

and the ourrene temporary stoppage of 1or2,I herein petitioners are guilty

bargaining in bad faith and hene violated the olletive bargaining agreement 1ith

private respondent Philippine Blooming Mills !o., in.. 9et against and tested by

foregoing priniples governing a demorati soiety, suh onlusion annot be

sustained. The demonstration held petitioners on Marh 0, -- before Malaa/ang

1as against alleged abuses of some Pasig poliemen, not against their employer,

herein private respondent firm, said demonstrate 1as purely and ompletely an

e&erise of their freedom e&pression in general and of their right of assembly and

petition for redress of grievanes in partiular before appropriate governmental ageny,

the !hief E&eutive, again the polie offiers of the muniipality of Pasig. They

e&erise their ivil and politial rights for their mutual aid protetion from 1hat theybelieve 1ere polie e&esses. s matter of fat, it 1as the duty of herein private

respondent firm to protet herein petitioner +nion and its members fro the harassment

of loal polie offiers. "t 1as to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to

the defense of, and ta2e up the udgels for, its employees, so that they an report to

1or2 free from harassment, ve&ation or peril and as onse8uene perform more

effiiently their respetive tas2s enhane its produtivity as 1ell as profits. Herein

respondent employer did not even offer to interede for its employees 1ith the loal

polie. Das it seuring peae for itself at the e&penses of its 1or2ersK Das it alsointimidated by the loal polie or did it enourage the loal polie to terrorize or ve& its

1or2ersK "ts failure to defend its o1n employees all the more 1ea2ened the position of

its laborers the alleged oppressive polie 1ho might have been all the more

emboldened thereby sub*et its lo1ly employees to further indignities.

"n see2ing santuary behind their freedom of e&pression 1ell as their right of assembly

and of petition against alleged perseution of loal offiialdom, the employees and


8/67

laborers of herein private respondent firm 1ere fighting for their very survival, utilizing

only the 1eapons afforded them by the !onstitution ; the untrammelled en*oyment of

their basi human rights. The pretension of their employer that it 1ould suffer loss or

damage by reason of the absene of its employees from oAlo2 in the morning to 3

oAlo2 in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights.

9uh apprehended loss or damage 1ould not spell the differene bet1een the life and

death of the firm or its o1ners or its management. The employeesA patheti situation1as a star2 reality ; abused, harassment and perseuted as they believed they 1ere

by the peae offiers of the muniipality. s above intimated, the ondition in 1hih the

employees found themselves vis)a)vis the loal polie of Pasig, 1as a matter that

vitally affeted their right to individual e&istene as 1ell as that of their families. Material

loss an be repaired or ade8uately ompensated. The debasement of the human being

bro2en in morale and brutalized in spirit@an never be fully evaluated in monetary

terms. The 1ounds fester and the sars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even

as he ries in anguish for retribution, denial of 1hih is li2e rubbing salt on bruisedtissues.

s heretofore stated, the primay of human rights ; freedom of e&pression, of

peaeful assembly and of petition for redress of grievanes ; over property rights has

been sustained. 14Emphati reiteration of this basi tenet as a oveted boon ; at one

the shield and armor of the dignity and 1orth of the human personality, the all@

onsuming ideal of our enlightened ivilization ; beomes Our duty, if freedom and

soial *ustie have any meaning at all for him 1ho toils so that apital an produe

eonomi goods that an generate happiness for all. To regard the demonstration

against polie offiers, not against the employer, as evidene of bad faith in olletive

bargaining and hene a violation of the olletive bargaining agreement and a ause

for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, strethes unduly

the ompass of the olletive bargaining agreement, is Ia potent means of inhibiting

speehI and therefore inflits a moral as 1ell as mortal 1ound on the onstitutional

guarantees of free e&pression, of peaeful assembly and of petition. 19

The olletive bargaining agreement 1hih fi&es the 1or2ing shifts of the employees,aording to the respondent !ourt "ndustrial %elations, in effet imposes on the

1or2ers the Iduty ... to observe regular 1or2ing hours.I The strain onstrution of the

!ourt of "ndustrial %elations that a stipulated 1or2ing shifts deny the 1or2ers the right

to stage mass demonstration against polie abuses during 1or2ing hours, onstitutes a

virtual tyranny over the mind and life the 1or2ers and deserves severe ondemnation.

%enuniation of the freedom should not be prediated on suh a slender ground.


9/67

The mass demonstration staged by the employees on Marh 0, -- ould not have

been legally en*oined by any ourt, suh an in*untion 1ould be trenhing upon the

freedom e&pression of the 1or2ers, even if it legally appears to be illegal pi2eting or

stri2e. 0The respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations in the ase at bar onedes that

the mass demonstration 1as not a delaration of a stri2e Ias the same not rooted in

any industrial dispute although there is onerted at and the ourrene of a

temporary stoppage 1or2.I (nne& I$I, p. 06, re.).

The respondent firm laims that there 1as no need for all its employees to partiipate

in the demonstration and that they suggested to the +nion that only the first and

regular shift from .M. to 3 P.M. should report for 1or2 in order that loss or damage to

the firm 1ill be averted. This stand failed appreiate the sine *"a non of an effetive

demonstration espeially by a labor union, namely the omplete unity of the +nion

members as 1ell as their total presene at the demonstration site in order to generate

the ma&imum sympathy for the validity of their ause but also immediately ation onthe part of the orresponding government agenies 1ith *urisdition over the issues

they raised against the loal polie. !irulation is one of the aspets of freedom of

e&pression. 1"f demonstrators are redued by one@third, then by that muh the

irulation of the issues raised by the demonstration is diminished. The more the

partiipants, the more persons an be apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover,

the absene of one@third of their members 1ill be regarded as a substantial indiation

of disunity in their ran2s 1hih 1ill enervate their position and abet ontinued alleged

polie perseution. t any rate, the +nion notified the ompany t1o days in advane of

their pro*eted demonstration and the ompany ould have made arrangements to

ounterat or prevent 1hatever losses it might sustain by reason of the absene of its

1or2ers for one day, espeially in this ase 1hen the +nion re8uested it to e&use only

the day@shift employees 1ho 1ill *oin the demonstration on Marh 0, -- 1hih

re8uest the +nion reiterated in their telegram reeived by the ompany at ->6? in the

morning of Marh 0, --, the day of the mass demonstration (pp. 03@0


10/67

mass demonstration against alleged polie abuses and the subse8uent separation of

the eight (5) petitioners from the servie onstituted an unonstitutional restraint on the

freedom of e&pression, freedom of assembly and freedom petition for redress of

grievanes, the respondent firm ommitted an unfair labor pratie defined in 9etion

0(a@) in relation to 9etion < of %epubli t #o. 546, other1ise 2no1n as the

"ndustrial Peae t. 9etion < of %epubli t #o. 5 guarantees to the employees the

right Ito engage in onert ativities for ... mutual aid or protetionI7 1hile 9etion 0(a@) regards as an unfair labor pratie for an employer interfere 1ith, restrain or oere

employees in the e&erise their rights guaranteed in 9etion Three.I

De repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the 1or2ers

of the respondent firm on Marh 0, --, 1as for their mutual aid and protetion

against alleged polie abuses, denial of 1hih 1as interferene 1ith or restraint on the

right of the employees to engage in suh ommon ation to better shield themselves

against suh alleged polie indignities. The insistene on the part of the respondentfirm that the 1or2ers for the morning and regular shift should not partiipate in the

mass demonstration, under pain of dismissal, 1as as heretofore stated, Ia potent

means of inhibiting speeh.I

9uh a onerted ation for their mutual help and protetion deserves at least e8ual

protetion as the onerted ation of employees in giving publiity to a letter omplaint

harging ban2 president 1ith immorality, nepotism, favoritism an disrimination in the

appointment and promotion of ban employees. 3De further ruled in the %epubli

9avings Ban2 ase, s"pra, that for the employees to ome 1ithin the protetive mantleof 9etion < in relation to 9etion 0(a@) on %epubli t #o. 546, Iit is not neessary

that union ativity be involved or that olletive bargaining be ontemplated,I as long

as the onerted ativity is for the furtherane of their interests. 2

s stated learly in the stipulation of fats embodied in the 8uestioned order of

respondent !ourt dated 9eptember 6, --, the ompany, I1hile e&pressly

a2no1ledging, that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the +nion guaranteed

by the !onstitution,I nonetheless emphasized that Iany demonstration for that mattershould not unduly pre*udie the normal operation of the ompanyI and I1arned the

PBMEO representatives that 1or2ers 1ho belong to the first and regular shifts, 1ho

1ithout previous leave of absene approved by the !ompany, partiularly the offiers

present 1ho are the organizers of the demonstration, 1ho shall fail to report for 1or2

the follo1ing morning (Marh 0, --) shall be dismissed, beause suh failure is a

violation of the e&isting !B and, therefore, 1ould be amounting to an illegal stri2e (7)I

(p. """, petitionerAs brief). 9uh threat of dismissal tended to oere the employees from


11/67

*oining the mass demonstration. Ho1ever, the issues that the employees raised

against the loal polie, 1ere more important to them beause they had the ourage to

proeed 1ith the demonstration, despite suh threat of dismissal. The most that ould

happen to them 1as to lose a dayAs 1age by reason of their absene from 1or2 on the

day of the demonstration. One dayAs pay means muh to a laborer, more espeially if

he has a family to support. Get, they 1ere 1illing to forego their one@day salary hoping

that their demonstration 1ould bring about the desired relief from polie abuses. Butmanagement 1as adamant in refusing to reognize the superior legitimay of their right

of free speeh, free assembly and the right to petition for redress.

Beause the respondent ompany ostensibly did not find it neessary to demand from

the 1or2ers proof of the truth of the alleged abuses inflited on them by the loal

polie, it thereby onedes that the evidene of suh abuses should properly be

submitted to the orresponding authorities having *urisdition over their omplaint and

to 1hom suh omplaint may be referred by the President of the Philippines for properinvestigation and ation 1ith a vie1 to disiplining the loal polie offiers involved.

On the other hand, 1hile the respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations found that the

demonstration Iparalyzed to a large e&tent the operations of the omplainant

ompany,I the respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations did not ma2e any finding as to

the fat of loss atually sustained by the firm. This signifiant irumstane an only

mean that the firm did not sustain any loss or damage. "t did not present evidene as to

1hether it lost e&peted profits for failure to omply 1ith purhase orders on that day7

or that penalties 1ere e&ated from it by ustomers 1hose orders ould not be filledthat day of the demonstration7 or that purhase orders 1ere anelled by the

ustomers by reason of its failure to deliver the materials ordered7 or that its o1n

e8uipment or materials or produts 1ere damaged due to absene of its 1or2ers on

Marh 0, --. On the ontrary, the ompany saved a sizable amount in the form of

1ages for its hundreds of 1or2ers, ost of fuel, 1ater and eletri onsumption that

day. 9uh savings ould have amply ompensated for unrealized profits or damages it

might have sustained by reason of the absene of its 1or2ers for only one day.

"

part from violating the onstitutional guarantees of free speeh and assembly as 1ell

as the right to petition for redress of grievanes of the employees, the dismissal of the

eight (5) leaders of the 1or2ers for proeeding 1ith the demonstration and

onse8uently being absent from 1or2, onstitutes a denial of soial *ustie li2e1ise

assured by the fundamental la1 to these lo1ly employees. 9etion 6 of rtile "" of the

!onstitution imposes upon the 9tate Ithe promotion of soial *ustie to insure the 1ell@


12/67

being and eonomi seurity of all of the people,I 1hih guarantee is emphasized by

the other diretive in 9etion of rtile " of the !onstitution that Ithe 9tate shall

afford protetion to labor ...I. %espondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations as an ageny of

the 9tate is under obligation at all times to give meaning and substane to these

onstitutional guarantees in favor of the 1or2ing man7 for other1ise these onstitutional

safeguards 1ould be merely a lot of Imeaningless onstitutional patter.I +nder the

"ndustrial Peae t, the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations is en*oined to effet the poliy ofthe la1 Ito eliminate the auses of industrial unrest by enouraging and proteting the

e&erise by employees of their right to self@organization for the purpose of olletive

bargaining and for the promotion of their moral+ social and economic ,ell)bein.I "t is

most unfortunate in the ase at bar that respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations, the

very governmental ageny designed therefor, failed to implement this poliy and failed

to 2eep faith 1ith its avo1ed mission ; its raison d-etre; as ordained and direted by

the !onstitution.

"t has been li2e1ise established that a violation of a onstitutional right divests the

ourt of *urisdition7 and as a onse8uene its *udgment is null and void and onfers no

rights. %elief from a riminal onvition seured at the sarifie of onstitutional

liberties, may be obtained through habeas orpus proeedings even long after the

finality of the *udgment. Thus, habeas orpus is the remedy to obtain the release of an

individual, 1ho is onvited by final *udgment through a fored onfession, 1hih

violated his onstitutional right against self@inrimination7 or 1ho is denied the right topresent evidene in his defense as a deprivation of his liberty 1ithout due proess of

la1, even after the aused has already served sentene for t1enty@t1o years. $

Both the respondents !ourt of "ndustrial %elations and private firm trenhed upon

these onstitutional immunities of petitioners. Both failed to aord preferene to suh

rights and aggravated the inhumanity to 1hih the aggrieved 1or2ers laimed they had

been sub*eted by the muniipal polie. Having violated these basi human rights of

the laborers, the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations ousted itself of *urisdition and the8uestioned orders it issued in the instant ase are a nullity. %eognition and protetion

of suh freedoms are imperative on all publi offies inluding the ourts 4as 1ell as

private itizens and orporations, the e&erise and en*oyment of 1hih must not be

nullified by mere proedural rule promulgated by the !ourt "ndustrial %elations

e&erising a purely delegate legislative po1er, 1hen even a la1 enated by !ongress

must yield to the untrammelled en*oyment of these human rights. There is no time limit

to the e&erise of the freedoms. The right to en*oy them is not e&hausted by the


13/67

delivery of one speeh, the printing of one artile or the staging of one demonstration.

"t is a ontinuing immunity to be invo2ed and e&erised 1hen e&igent and e&pedient

1henever there are errors to be retified, abuses to be denouned, inhumanities to be

ondemned. Other1ise these guarantees in the Bill of %ights 1ould be vitiated by rule

on proedure presribing the period for appeal. The battle then 1ould be redued to a

rae for time. nd in suh a ontest bet1een an employer and its laborer, the latter

eventually loses beause he annot employ the best an dediated ounsel 1ho andefend his interest 1ith the re8uired diligene and zeal, bereft as he is of the finanial

resoures 1ith 1hih to pay for ompetent legal servies. 4-a

"

The !ourt of "ndustrial %elations rule presribes that motion for reonsideration of its

order or 1rit should filed 1ithin five (6) days from notie thereof and that the arguments

in support of said motion shall be filed 1ithin ten (?) days from the date of filing of

suh motion for reonsideration (9e. ). s above intimated, these rules of

proedure 1ere promulgated by the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations pursuant to a

legislative delegation. 9

The motion for reonsideration 1as filed on 9eptember 3-, --, or seven (4) days

from notie on 9eptember 33, -- of the order dated 9eptember 6, -- or t1o (3)

days late. Petitioners laim that they ould have filed it on 9eptember 35, --, but it

1as a 9unday.

=oes the mere fat that the motion for reonsideration 1as filed t1o (3) days late

defeat the rights of the petitioning employeesK Or more diretly and onretely, does

the inadvertent omission to omply 1ith a mere !ourt of "ndustrial %elations proedural

rule governing the period for filing a motion for reonsideration or appeal in labor

ases, promulgated pursuant to a legislative delegation, prevail over onstitutional

rightsK The ans1er should be obvious in the light of the aforeited ases. To aord

supremay to the foregoing rules of the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations over basi human

rights sheltered by the !onstitution, is not only inompatible 1ith the basi tenet of

onstitutional government that the !onstitution is superior to any statute or subordinate

rules and regulations, but also does violene to natural reason and logi. The

dominane and superiority of the onstitutional right over the aforesaid !ourt of

"ndustrial %elations proedural rule of neessity should be affirmed. 9uh a !ourt of

"ndustrial %elations rule as applied in this ase does not implement or reinfore or

strengthen the onstitutional rights affeted,A but instead onstrit the same to the point

of nullifying the en*oyment thereof by the petitioning employees. 9aid !ourt of

"ndustrial %elations rule, promulgated as it 1as pursuant to a mere legislative


14/67

delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is beyond the authority granted by the

!onstitution and the la1. period of five (6) days 1ithin 1hih to file a motion for

reonsideration is too short, espeially for the aggrieved 1or2ers, 1ho usually do not

have the ready funds to meet the neessary e&penses therefor. "n ase of the !ourt of

ppeals and the 9upreme !ourt, a period of fifteen (6) days has been fi&ed for the

filing of the motion for re hearing or reonsideration (9ee. ?, %ule 67 9e. , %ule 637

9e. , %ule 6, %evised %ules of !ourt). The delay in the filing of the motion forreonsideration ould have been only one day if 9eptember 35, -- 1as not a

9unday. This fat aentuates the unreasonableness of the !ourt of "ndustrial are

onerned.

"t should be stressed here that the motion for reonsideration dated 9eptember 34,

--, is based on the ground that the order sought to be reonsidered Iis not in

aordane 1ith la1, evidene and fats addued during the hearing,I and li2e1ise

prays for an e&tension of ten (?) days 1ithin 1hih to file arguments pursuant to9etions 6, and 4 of the %ules of the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations (nne& II, pp.

64@?, re.)7 although the arguments 1ere atually filed by the herein petitioners on

Otober 0, -- (nne& I"I, pp. 4?@4


15/67

!ongress, must li2e1ise yield to the onstitutional rights invo2ed by herein petitioners

even before the institution of the unfair labor pratie harged against them and in their

defense to the said harge.

"n the ase at bar, enforement of the basi human freedoms sheltered no less by the

organi la1, is a most ompelling reason to deny appliation of a !ourt of "ndustrial

%elations rule 1hih impinges on suh human rights.30

-a

"t is an aepted priniple that the 9upreme !ourt has the inherent po1er to Isuspend

its o1n rules or to e&ept a partiular ase from its operation, 1henever the purposes

of *ustie re8uire.I 30-5 Mr. :ustie Barredo in his onurring opinion in Estrada vs. Sto.

Domino. 30-6reiterated this priniple and added that

nder this a"thorit!+ this Co"rt is enabled to cove ,ith all sit"ations ,itho"t

concernin itself abo"t proced"ral niceties that do not s*"are ,ith the need

to do /"stice+ in an! case+ ,itho"t f"rther loss of time+ provided that theriht of the parties to a f"ll da! in co"rt is not s"bstantiall! impaired. (h"s+

this Co"rt ma! treat an appeal as a certiorari and vice)versa. In other

,ords+ ,hen all the material facts are spread in the records before s+ and

all the parties have been d"l! heard+ it matters little that the error of the

co"rt a *"o is of /"dment or of /"risdiction. 0e can then and there render

the appropriate /"dment. "s 1ithin the ontemplation of this dotrine that

as it is perfetly legal and 1ithin the po1er of this !ourt to stri2e do1n in an

appeal ats 1ithout or in e&ess of *urisdition or ommitted 1ith graveabuse of disretion, it annot be beyond the admit of its authority, in

appropriate ases, to reverse in a certain proceed in an! error of /"dment

of a co"rt a *"o ,hich cannot be e1actl! cateori$ed as a fla, of

/"risdiction. "f there an be any doubt, 1hih " do not entertain, on 1hether

or not the errors this !ourt has found in the deision of the !ourt of

ppeals are short of being *urisdition nullities or e&esses, this !ourt

1ould still be on firm legal grounds should it hoose to reverse said

deision here and no1 even if s"ch errors can be considered as meremista2es of /"dment or onl! as fa"lts in the e1ercise of /"risdiction+ so as

to avoid the unneessary return of this ase to the lo1er ourt for the sole

purpose of pursuing the ordinary ourse of an appeal. (Emphasis

supplied). 30-d

"nsistene on the appliation of the 8uestioned !ourt industrial %elations rule in this

partiular ase at bar 1ould an unreasoning adherene to IProedural nietiesI 1hih

denies *ustie to the herein laborers, 1hose basi human freedoms, inluding the right


16/67

to survive, must be aording supremay over the property rights of their employer firm

1hih has been given a full hearing on this ase, espeially 1hen, as in the ase at

bar, no atual material damage has be demonstrated as having been inflited on its

property rights.

"f De an disregard our o1n rules 1hen *ustie re8uires it, obediene to the

!onstitution renders more imperative the suspension of a !ourt of "ndustrial %elationsrule that lash 1ith the human rights santioned and shielded 1ith resolution onern

by the speifi guarantees outlined in the organi la1. "t should be stressed that the

appliation in the instant ase 9etion 6 of the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations rules

relied upon by herein respondent firm is unreasonable and therefore suh appliation

beomes unonstitutional as it subverts the human rights of petitioning labor union and

1or2ers in the light of the peuliar fats and irumstanes revealed by the reord.

The suspension of the appliation of 9etion 6 of the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations

rules 1ith referene to the ase at is also authorized by 9etion 3? of !ommon1ealth

t #o. ?

s to the point that the evidene being offered by the petitioners in the

motion for ne1 trial is not Ine1ly disovered,I as suh term is understood in

the rules of proedure for the ordinary ourts, De hold that suh riterion is

not binding upon the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations. +nder 9etion 3? of

!ommon1ealth t #o. ?


17/67

e&pedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or dispelling any doubts

that may give rise to future disputes. (ng Tibay v. !.".%., .%. #o. 00-,

$eb. 4, -0?7 Manila Trading J 9upply !o. v. Phil. 'abor, 4 Phil. 30.)

$or these reasons, De believe that this provision is ample enough to have

enabled the respondent ourt to onsider 1hether or not its previous ruling

that petitioners onstitute a minority 1as founded on fat, 1ithout regard to

the tehnial meaning of ne1ly disovered evidene. ... (lonso v. illamor, Phil.


18/67

*ustie.I (Poteniano v. !ourt of ppeals, ?0 Phil. 6, L-65). s

suintly put by :ustie Ma2alintal, they Ishould give 1ay to the realities of

the situation.I (+rbayan v. !alte&, '@6


19/67

... The Motives of these men are often ommendable. Dhat 1e must

remember, ho1ever, is thatpreservation of liberties does not depend on

motives. A s"ppression of libert! has the same effect ,hether the s"ppress

or be a reformer or an o"tla,. (he onl! protection aainst mis"ided $eal

is a constant alertness of the infractions of the "arantees of

libert!ontained in our !onstitution. Each s"rrender of libert! to the

demands of the moment ma2es easier another+ larer s"rrender. (he battleover the Bill of 6ihts is a never endin one.

... (he liberties of an! person are the liberties of all of "s.

... "n short, the Liberties of none are safe "nless the liberties of all are

protected.

... B"t even if ,e sho"ld sense no daner to o"r o,n liberties+ even if ,e

feel sec"re beca"se ,e belon to a ro"p that is important and respected+,e m"st reconi$e that o"r Bill of 6ihts is a code of fair pla! for the less

fort"nate that ,e in all honor and ood conscience m"st be observe . 31

The ase at bar is 1orse.

Management has sho1n not only la2 of good@1ill or good intention, but a omplete

la2 of sympatheti understanding of the plight of its laborers 1ho laim that they are

being sub*eted to indignities by the loal polie, "t 1as more e&pedient for the firm to

onserve its inome or profits than to assist its employees in their fight for their

freedoms and seurity against alleged petty tyrannies of loal polie offiers. This is

sheer opportunism. 9uh opportunism and e&pedieny resorted to by the respondent

ompany assaulted the immunities and 1elfare of its employees. "t 1as pure and

implement selfishness, if not greed.

Of happy relevane is the -4 ase of 6ep"blic Savins Ban2 vs. C.I.6., 31here the

petitioner Ban2 dismissed eight (5) employees for having 1ritten and published Ia

patently libelous letter ... to the Ban2 president demanding his resignation on thegrounds of immorality, nepotism in the appointment and favoritism as 1ell as

disrimination in the promotion of ban2 employees.I Therein, thru Mr. :ustie !astro,

De ruled>

"t 1ill avail the Ban2 none to gloat over this admission of the respondents.

ssuming that the latter ated in their individual apaities 1hen they 1rote

the letter@harge they 1ere nonetheless proteted for they 1ere engaged in


20/67

onerted ativity, in the e&erise of their right of self organization that

inludes onerted ativity for mutual aid and protetion, (9etion < of the

"ndustrial Peae t ...) This is the vie1 of some members of this !ourt.

$or, as has been aptly stated, the /oinin in protests or demands+ even b! a

small ro"p of emplo!ees+ if in f"rtherance of their interests as s"ch+ is a

concerted activit! protected b! the Ind"strial Peace Act. It is not necessar!

that "nion activit! be involved or that collective barainin becontemplated. (nnot., .'.%. 3d 0 L-0-).

&&& &&& &&&

"nstead of stifling ritiism, the Ban2 should have allo1ed the respondents

to air their grievanes.

&&& &&& &&&

The Ban2 defends its ation by invo2ing its right to disipline for 1hat it

alls the respondentsA libel in giving undue publiity to their letter@harge. To

be sure, the right of self@organization of employees is not unlimited

(%epubli viation !orp. vs. #'%B


21/67

imperative in the ase at bar, 1here the mass demonstration 1as not against the

ompany nor any of its offiers.

DHE%E$O%E, *udgement is hereby rendered>

() setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent !ourt of "ndustrial

%elations dated 9eptember 6 and Otober -, --7 and

(3) direting the re instatement of the herein eight (5) petitioners, 1ith full ba2 pay

from the date of their separation from the servie until re instated, minus one dayAs pay

and 1hatever earnings they might have realized from other soures during their

separation from the servie.

Dith osts against private respondent Philippine Blooming !ompany, "n.

7aldivar+ Castro+ %ernando and Es"erra+ JJ.+ conc"r.

8a2alintal+ C.J+ too2 no part.

&epa8ae Opinions

B)RRE,O# J., dissenting>

" bo1 in respetful and sinere admiration, but my sense of duty ompels me to

dissent.

The ba2ground of this ase may be found prinipally in the stipulation of fats upon1hih the deision under revie1 is based. "t is as follo1s>

. That omplainant Philippine Blooming Mills, !ompany, "n., is a

orporation e&isting and operating under and by virtue of the la1s of the

Philippines 1ith orporate address at Muelle de Binondo, Manila,

1hih is the employer of respondent7


22/67

3. That Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization PBMEO for

short, is a legitimate labor organization, and the respondents herein are

either offiers of respondent PBMEO or members thereof7

?? M ;3>?? PM 1or2ers as 1ell as those 1or2ing in the regular shifts (4>?? .M. to

0>?? PM and 5>?? M to 6>?? PM in the morning of Marh 0, --7


!ompany> () Mr. rthur '. ng, (3) tty. !esareo 9. de 'eon, :r. (


23/67

panel 1as omposed of> #ianor Tolentino, %odulfo Munsod, Ben*amin

Pagu and $lorenio Padrigano. "n this afternoon meeting of Marh


24/67

representatives namely> respondent $lorenio Padrigano, %ufino %o&as,

Mariano de 'eon, senion Paiente, Bonifaio auna, Ben*amin Pagu,

#ianor Tolentino and %odulfo Monsod 1ho are diretly responsible for

perpetrating this unfair labor pratie at, are hereby onsidered to have

lost their status as employees of the Philippine Blooming Mills, "n. (p. 5,

nne& $.)

lthough it is alleged in the petition herein that petitioners 1ere notified of this deision

on 9eptember 3


25/67

ugust 3, -


26/67

9etion 6 of the !"% %ules re8uires that one 1ho see2s to reonsider the

*udgment of the trial *udge must do so 1ithin five (6) days from the date on

1hih he reeived notie of the deision, sub*et of the motion. #e&t follo1s

9etion 1hih says that the motion must be submitted 1ith arguments

supporting the same. But if said arguments ould not be submitted

simultaneously 1ith the motion, the same setion ommands the Athe

movant shall file the same 1ithin ten (?) days from the date of the filing ofhis motion for reonsideration.A 9etion 4 of the same rules admonishes a

movant that I(f)ailure to observe the above@speified periods shall be

suffiient ause for dismissal of the motion for reonsideration or stri2ing

out of the ans1er andor the supporting arguments, as the ase may beI.

#ot that the foregoing rules stand alone. :urisprudene has sine stabilized

the enforeability thereof. Thus, in Bien vs. Castillo, (-4 Phil. -6) 1e ruled

that 1here a pro forma motion for reonsideration 1as filed out of time itsdenial is in order pursuant to !"% rules, regardless of 1hether the

arguments in support of said motion 1ere or 1ere not filed on time.

Pangasinan Employees 'aborers J Tenants ssoiation (PE'T) vs.

Martinez, ('@


27/67

(6) days. 9urely enough, said arguments 1ere filed out of time ; five (6)

days late. nd the *udgment had beome final.


28/67

Preisely beause the onlusions of the main opinion are prediated on an e&position

of the onstitutional guarantees of freedoms of speeh and peaeful assembly for

redress of grievanes, so sholarly and masterful that it is bound to over1helm +s

unless De note arefully the real issues in this ase, " am onstrained, over and above

my sinere admiration for the elo8uene and zeal of Mr. :ustie Ma2asiarAs brilliant

dissertation, to dutifully state that as presented by petitioners themselves and in the

light of its attendant irumstanes, this ase does not all for the resolution of anyonstitutional issue. dmittedly, the invoation of any onstitutional guarantee,

partiularly 1hen it diretly affets individual freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights,

deserves the losest attention of this !ourt. "t is my understanding of onstitutional la1

and *udiial praties related thereto, ho1ever, that even the most valuable of our

onstitutional rights may be proteted by the ourts only 1hen their *urisdition over the

sub*et matter is un8uestionably established and the appliable rules of proedure

onsistent 1ith substantive and proedural due proess are observed. #o doubt no

onstitutional right an be sarified in the altar of proedural tehnialities, very oftenfittingly do1ngraded as nieties but as far as " 2no1, this priniple is applied to annul or

set aside final *udgments only in ases 1herein there is a possible denial of due

proess. " have not ome aross any instane, and none is mentioned or ited in the

1ell@doumented main opinion, 1herein a final and e&eutory *udgment has been

invalidated and set aside upon the ground that the same has the effet of santioning

the violation of a onstitutional right, unless suh violation amounts to a denial of due

proess.

Dithout support from any provision of the onstitution or any la1 or from any *udiial

preedent or reason of priniple, the main opinion nudely and un8ualifiedly asserts, as

if it 1ere universally established and aepted as an absolute rule, that the violation of

a onstitutional right divests the ourt of *urisdition7 and as a onse8uene its

*udgment is null and void and onfers no rightsI. Chave$ vs. Co"rt of Appeals, 30

9!%


29/67

s may be seen, ho1ever, the onstitutional issues involved in those ases are a far

ry from the one no1 before +s. Here, petitioners do not laim they 1ere denied due

proess. #or do they pretend that in denying their motion for reonsideration, Ithe

respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations and private firm trenhed upon any of their

onstitutional immunities ...,I ontrary to the statement to suh effet in the main

opinion. "ndeed, neither in the petition herein nor in any of the other pleading of

petitioners an any diret or indiret assertion be found assailing the impugneddeision of the respondent ourt as being null and void beause it santioned a denial

of a valued onstitutional liberty.

"n their petition, petitioners state the issue for Our resolution as follo1s>

Petitioners herein humbly submit that the issue to be resolved is 1hether or

not the respondent !ourten banc under the fats and irumstanes,

should onsider the Motion for %eonsideration filed by your petitioners.

Petitioners, therefore, in filing this petition for a 1rit of ertiorari, humbly beg

this Honorable !ourt to treat this petition under %ule 0< and 6 of the %ules

of !ourt.

&&& &&& &&&

The basi issue therefore is the appliation by the !ourt en ban of the

strit and narro1 tehnial rules of proedure 1ithout ta2ing into aount

*ustie, e8uity and substantial merits of the ase.

On the other hand, the omplete argument submitted by petitioners on this

point in their brief runs thus>

"""

"99+E9

. =oes the refusal to heed a 1arning in the e&erise of a fundamental rightto peaeably assemble and petition the government for redress of

grievanes onstitute bargaining in bad faithK and,

=o the fats found by the ourt belo1 *ustify the delaration and onlusion

that the union 1as guilty of bargaining in bad faith meriting the dismissal of

the persons allegedly responsible thereforeK


30/67

3. Das there grave abuse of disretion 1hen the respondent ourt refused

to at one 1ay or another on the petition for relief from the resolution of

Otober -, --K

"

%+ME#T

(he respondent Co"rt erred in findin the petition "nion "ilt! of barainin

in bad faith and conse*"entl! dismissin the persons alleedl! responsible

therefor+ beca"se s"ch concl"sion is co"ntr! to the evidence on record;

that the dismissal of leaders ,as discriminator!.

s a result of e&erising the onstitutional rights of freedom to assemble

and petition the duly onstituted authorities for redress of their grievanes,

the petitioners 1ere harged and then ondemned of bargaining in badfaith.

The findings that petitioners 1ere guilty of bargaining in bad faith 1ere not

borne out by the reords. "t 1as not even alleged nor proven by evidene.

Dhat has been alleged and 1hih the respondent ompany tried to prove

1as that the demonstration amounted to a stri2e and hene, a violation of

the provisions of the Ino@lo2out ; no stri2eI lause of the olletive

bargaining agreement. Ho1ever, this allegation and proof submitted by the

respondent ompany 1ere pratially resolved 1hen the respondent ourt

in the same deision stated ategorially>

AThe ompany alleges that the 1al2out beause of the

demonstration is tantamount to a delaration of a stri2e. De do

not thin2 so, as the same is not rooted in any ind"strial disp"te

altho"h there is a concerted act and the occ"rrence of a

temporar! stoppae of ,or2.A (Emphasis supplied, p. 0, 6th

paragraph, =eision.)

The respondent ourtAs findings that the petitioner union

bargained in bad faith is not tenable beause>

%irst+ it has not been alleged nor proven by the respondent ompany7 .

Second, before the demonstration, the petitioner union and the respondent

ompany onvened t1ie in a meeting to thresh out the matter of


31/67

demonstration. Petitioners re8uested that the employees and 1or2ers be

e&used but the respondent ompany instead of granting the re8uest or

even settling the matter so that the hours of 1or2 1ill not be disrupted,

immediately threatened the employees of mass dismissal7

(hird, the refusal of the petitioner union to grant the re8uest of the

ompany that the first shift shall be e&luded in the demonstration is nottantamount to bargaining in bad faith beause the ompany 2ne1 that the

offiers of the union belonged to the first shift, and that the union annot go

and lead the demonstration 1ithout their offiers. "t must be stated that the

ompany intends to prohibit its offiers to lead and *oin the demonstration

beause most of them belonged to the first shift7 and

%o"rth, the findings of the respondent ourt that the demonstration if

allo1ed 1ill pratially give the union the right to hange the 1or2ing

onditions agreed in the !B is a onlusion of fats, opinionated and not

borne by any evidene on reord. The demonstration did not pratially

hange the terms or onditions of employment beause it 1as only for one

() day and the ompany 2ne1 about it before it 1ent through. De an

even say that it 1as the ompany 1ho bargained in bad faith, 1hen upon

representation of the Bureau of 'abor not to dismiss the employees

demonstrating, the ompany taitly approved the same and yet 1hile the

demonstration 1as in progress, the ompany filed a +'P !harge and

onse8uently dismissed those 1ho partiipated.

%eords of the ase sho1 that more or less 0?? members of the union

partiipated in the demonstration and yet, the respondent ourt seleted

the eight offiers to be dismissed from the union thus losing their status as

employees of the respondent ompany. The respondent ourt should have

ta2en into aount that the ompanyAs ation in allo1ing the return of more

or less three hundred ninety t1o (


32/67

%epubli t 546. This reates a bad preedent beause it 1ill appear that

the rights of the union is solely dependent upon the !B.

One of the ardinal primary rights 1hih must be respeted in proeedings

before the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations is that Ithe deision must be

rendered on the evidene presented at the hearing, or at least ontained in

the reord and dislosed to the parties affeted.I ("nterstate !ommere!ommission vs. ' J # %. !o., 334 +.9. 55,

) That respondent ourtAs finding that petitioners have been guilty of

bargaining in bad faith and onse8uently lost their status as employees of

the respondent ompany did not meet the meaning and omprehension of

Isubstantial merits of the ase.I Bargaining in bad faith has not beenalleged in the omplaint (nne& I!I, Petition) nor proven during the hearing

of the an. The important and substantial merit of the ase is 1hether

under the fats and irumstanes alleged in respondent ompanyAs

pleadings, the demonstration done by the petitioners amounted to on

Iillegal stri2eI and therefore in violation of the Ino stri2e ; no lo2 outI

lause of the !olletive Bargaining greement. Petitioners respetfully

reiterate and humbly submit, that the respondent ourt had altogether

opined and deided that suh demonstration does not amount to a stri2e.

Hene, 1ith that findings, petitioners should have been absolved of the

harges against them. #evertheless, the same respondent ourt

disregarding, its o1n findings, 1ent out of bounds by delaring the

petitioners as having Ibargained in faith.I The stand of the respondent ourt

is fallaious, as it follo1s the priniple in logi as Inon@si8uitorI7

3) That again respondents 1anted to impress that the freedom to assemble

peaeably to air grievanes against the duly onstituted authorities as


33/67

guaranteed in our !onstitution is sub*et to the limitation of the agreement

in the !olletive Bargaining greement. The fundamental rights of the

petitioners to free speeh and assembly is paramount to the provision in

the !olletive Bargaining greement and suh attempt to override the

onstitutional provision 1ould be null and void. These fundamental rights of

the petitioners 1ere not ta2en into onsideration in the deliberation of the

ase by the respondent ourt7

Thus, it is lear from the foregoing ontentions that petitioners are not raising any issue

of due proess. They do not posit that the deision of the industrial ourt is null and

void on that onstitutional ground. True it is that they fault the respondent ourt for

having pried the provisions of the olletive bargaining agreement herein involved

over and above their onstitutional right to peaeably assemble and petition for redress

of their grievanes against the abuses of the Pasig polie, but in no sense at all do

they allege or ontend that suh ation affets its *urisdition in a manner that rendersthe proeedings a nullity. "n other 1ords, petitioners themselves onsider the alleged

fla1 in the ourtAs ation as a mere error of *udgment rather than that of *urisdition

1hih the main opinion pro*ets. $or this !ourt to roundly and indignantly ondemn

private respondent no1 for the grievous violation of the fundamental la1 the main

opinion sees in its refusal to allo1 all its 1or2ers to *oin the demonstration in 8uestion,

1hen that speifi issue has not been duly presented to +s and properly argued, is to

my mind unfair and un*ust, for the simple reason that the manner this ase 1as

brought to +s does not afford it the opportunity to be heard in regard to suh supposed

onstitutional transgression.

To be sure, petitioners do maintain, that respondent ourt ommitted an error of

*urisdition by finding petitioners guilty of bargaining in bad faith 1hen the harge

against them alleged in the omplaint 1as for having onduted a mass demonstration,

1hih Iamounted to a stri2eI, in violation of the !olletive Bargaining greement, but

definitely, this *urisditional 8uestion has no onstitutional olor. "ndeed, De an even

assume for the sa2e of argument, that the trial *udge did err in not giving preferential

importane to the fundamental freedoms invo2ed by the petitioners over themanagement and proprietary attributes laimed by the respondent private firm ; still,

De annot rightly hold that suh disregard of petitionersA prieless liberties divested His

Honor of *urisdition in the premises. The unbending dotrine of this !ourt is that

Ideisions, erroneous or not, beome final after the period fi&ed by la17 litigations

1ould be endless, no 8uestions 1ould be finally settled7 and titles to property 1ould

beome prearious if the losing party 1ere allo1ed to reopen them at any time in the

futureI.3


34/67

" only have to add to this that the fat that the error is in the interpretation, onstrution

or appliation of a onstitutional preept not onstituting a denial of due proess,

should not ma2e any differene. :uridially, a party annot be less in*ured by an

overloo2ed or erroneously santioned violation of an ordinary statute than by a

misonstrued or onstitutional in*untion affeting his individual, freedoms. "n both

instanes, there is in*ustie 1hih should be intolerable 1ere it not for the more

paramount onsiderations that inform the priniple of immutability of final *udgments. "dare say this must be the reason 1hy, as " have already noted, the main opinion does

not ite any onstitutional provision, la1 or rule or any *udiial dotrine or priniple

supporting its basi holding that infringement of onstitutional guarantees, other than

denial of due proess, divests ourts of *urisdition to render valid *udgments.

"n this onnetion, it must be realled that the teahing of Philippine ssoiation of

!olleges and niversities vs. Secretar! of Ed"cation,2follo1ing Santiao vs. %ar

Eastern Broadcastin,

is that Iit is one of our (the 9upreme !ourtAs) deisionalpraties that unless a onstitutional point is speifially raised, insisted upon and

ade8uately argued, the ourt 1ill not onsider itI. "n the ase at bar, the petitioners

have not raised, they are not insisting upon, muh less have they ade8uately argued

the onstitutional issues so e&tendedly and ably disussed in the main opinion.

"ndeed, it does not seem 1ise and sound for the 9upreme !ourt to hold that the

erroneous resolution by a ourt of a onstitutional issue not amounting to a denial of

due proess renders its *udgment or deision null and void, and, therefore, sub*et to

atta2 even after said *udgment or deision has beome final and e&eutory. " haveatually tried to bring myself into agreement 1ith the vie1s of the distinguished and

learned 1riter of the main opinion, if only to avoid dissenting from his 1ell prepared

thesis, but its obvious inongruity 1ith settled *urisprudene al1ays omes to the fore

to stifle my effort.

s a matter of fat, for a moment, it appeared to me as if " ould go along 1ith

petitioners under the authority of our onstitutionally irreduible appellate *urisdition

under 9etion 3(6) of rtile "" of the Philippines

(reenated pratially ipssisimisverbis in 9etion 6(3) of the -4< !onstitution), only to realize upon further refletion

that the very po1er granted to us to revie1 deisions of lo1er ourts involving

8uestions of la1(and these inlude onstitutional issues not affeting the validity of

statutes, treaty, e&eutive agreement, et.) is not un8ualified but has to be e&erised

only in the manner provided in the la1 of the %ules of !ourt. "n other 1ords, before De

an e&erise appellate *urisdition over onstitutional issues, no matter ho1 important

they may be, there must first be a sho1ing of ompliane 1ith the appliable


35/67

proedural la1 or rules, among them, those governing appeals from the !ourt of

"ndustrial %elations involved herein. !onse8uently, if by la1 or rule, a *udgment of the

industrial ourt is already final and e&eutory, this !ourt 1ould be devoid of po1er and

authority to revie1, muh less alter or modify the same, absent any denial of due

proess or fatal defet of *urisdition. "t must be borne in mind that the situation

onfronting +s no1 is not merely 1hether or not De should pass upon a 8uestion or

issue not speifially raised by the party onerned, 1hih, to be sure, ould beenough reason to dissuade +s from ta2ing pains in resolving the same7 rather, the real

problem here is 1hether or not De have *urisdition to entertain it. nd, in this regard,

as already stated earlier, no less than :ustie !onrado 9anhez, the 1riter of

!havez,s"pra., 1hih is being relied upon by the main opinion, already laid do1n the

preedent in Eli$alde vs. Co"rt, s"pra, 1hih for its four@s8uare appliability to the fats

of this ase, De have no hoie but to follo1, that is, that in vie1 of reonsideration but

even their argument supporting the same 1ithin the presribed period, Ithe *udgment

(against them)has beome final, beyond reallI.

"ndeed, 1hen " onsider that ourts 1ould be useless if the finality and enforeability of

their *udgments are made ontingent on the orretness thereof from the onstitutional

standpoint, and that in truth, 1hether or not they are orret is something that is al1ays

dependent upon ombined opinion of the members of the 9upreme !ourt, 1hih in

turn is naturally as hangeable as the members themselves are hanged, " annot

oneive of anything more perniious and destrutive to a trustful administration of

*ustie than the idea that, even 1ithout any sho1ing of denial of due proess or 1ant of

*urisdition of the ourt, a final and e&eutory *udgment of suh ourt may still be set

aside or reopened in instanes other than those e&pressly allo1ed by %ule

'itigation must end and terminate sometime and some1here, and it is

essential to an effetive and effiient administration of *ustie that one a

*udgment has beome final, the 1inning party be not, through a mere

subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdit. !ourts must therefore guard

against any sheme alulated to bring about that result. !onstituted as


36/67

they are to put an end to ontroversies, ourts should fro1n upon any

attempt to prolong them.

'i2e1ise the stern admonition of :ustie #eore 8alcolm in D! Ca! v. Crossfield+

... Publi poliy and sound pratie demand that, at the ris2 of oasionalerrors, *udgments of ourts should beome final at some definite date fi&ed

by la1. The very ob*et for 1hih ourts 1ere instituted 1as to put an end

to ontroversies. To fulfill this purpose and to do so speedily, ertain time

limits, more or less arbitrary, have to be set up to spur on the slothful. A"f a

vaillating, irresolute *udge 1ere allo1ed to thus 2eep auses ever 1ithin

his po1er, to determine and redetermine them term after term, to bandy his

*udgments about from one party to the other, and to hange his onlusions

as freely and as apriiously as a hamelon may hange its hues, then

litigation might beome more intolerable than the 1rongs it is intended to

redress.A (9ee rnedo vs. 'lorente and 'iongson (-), 5 Phil., 364.).

My disagreement 1ith the dissenters in 6ep"blic vs. J"de de los Aneles,

'@33, Otober 0, -4, 0 9!% 033, 1as not as to the unalterability and

invulnerability of final *udgments but rather on the orret interpretation of the ontents

of the *udgment in 8uestion therein. %elevantly to this ase at bar, " said then>

The point of res ad/"dicata disussed in the dissents has not esaped myattention. #either am " overloo2ing the point of the !hief :ustie regarding

the dangerous and inimial impliations of a ruling that 1ould authorize the

revision, amendment or alteration of a final and e&eutory *udgment. " 1ant

to emphasize that my position in this opinion does not detrat a 1hit from

the soundness, authority and binding fore of e&isting dotrines en*oining

any suh modifiations. The publi poliy of maintaining faith and respet in

*udiial deisions, 1hih inform said dotrines, is admittedly of the highest

order. " am not advoating any departure from them. #or am " trying to put

forth for e&eution a deision that " believe should have been rather than

1hat it is. ll " am doing is to vie1 not the *udgment of :udge Tengo but

the deision of this !ourt in .%. #o. '@3?-6?, as it is and not as " believe it

should have been, and, by opinion, " 1ould li2e to guide the ourt a *"o as

to 1hat, in my o1n vie1, is the true and orret meaning and impliations of

deision of this !ourt, not that of :udge TengoAs.


37/67

The main opinion alls attention to many instant preisely involving ases in the

industrial ourt, 1herein the !ourt refused to be onstrained by tehnial rules of

proedure in its determination to aord substantial *ustie to the parties " still believe in

those deisions, some of 1hih 1ere penned by me. " am ertain, ho1ever, that in

none of those preedents did this !ourt disturb a *udgment already final and e&eutory.

"t too obvious to re8uire e&tended eluidation or even referene any preedent or

authority that the priniple of immutability of final *udgments is not a mere tehniality,and if it may onsidered to be in a sense a proedural rule, it is one that is founded on

publi poliy and annot, therefore, yield to the ordinary plea that it must give priority to

substantial *ustie.

pparently vent on loo2ing for a onstitutional point of due proess to hold on, the main

opinion goes far as to maintain that the long e&isting and onstantly applied rule

governing the filing of motions for reonsideration in the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations,

Ias applied in this ase does not implement on reinfore or strengthen theonstitutional rights affeted, but instead onstrits the same to the point of nullifying

the en*oyment thereof by the petitioning employees. 9aid !ourt on "ndustrial %elations

%ule, promulgated as it 1as pursuant to mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable

and therefore is beyond the authority granted by the !onstitution and the la1. period

of five (6) days 1ithin 1hih to file a motion for reonsideration is too short, espeially

for the aggrieve 1or2ers, 1ho usually do not have the ready funds to meet the

neessary e&penses therefor. "n ase of the !ourt of ppeal and the 9upreme !ourt, a

period of fifteen (6) days has been fi&ed for the filing of the motion for re@hearing or

reonsideration (9e. ?, %ule 67 9e. , %ule 637 9e. , %ule 6, %evised %ules of

!ourt). The delay in the filing of the motion for reonsideration ould have been only

one day if 9eptember 35, -- 1as not a 9unday. This fat aentuates the

unreasonableness of the !ourt of "ndustrial %elations %ule insofar as irumstanes of

the instant ase are onerned.I

" am afraid the zeal and passion of these arguments do not *ustify the onlusion

suggested. ie1ed ob*etively, it an readily be seen that there an hardly be any

fatual or logial basis for suh a ritial vie1 of the rule in 8uestion. 9aid rule provides>

MOT"O#9 $O% %E!O#9"=E%T"O#

9e. 6. The movant shall file the motion, in si& opies, 1ithin five (6) days

from the date on 1hih he reeives notie of the order or deision, ob*et of

the motion for reonsideration, the same to be verified under oath 1ith

respet to the orretness of the allegations of fat, and serving a opy


38/67

thereof, personally or by registered mail, on the adverse party. The latter

may file an ans1er, in si& () opies, duly verified under oath.

9e. . Both the motion and the ans1er shall be submitted 1ith

arguments supporting the same. "f the arguments an not be submitted

simultaneously 1ith said motions, upon notie !ourt, the movant shall file

same 1ithin ten (?) days from the date of the filing of his motion forreonsideration. The adverse party shall also file his ans1er 1ithin ten (?)

days from the reeipt by him of a opy of the arguments submitted by the

movant.

9e. 4. fter an ans1er to the motion is registered, or after ten (?) days

from the reeipt of the arguments in support of said motion having been

filed, the motion shall be deemed submitted for resolution of the !ourt in

banc, unless it is onsidered neessary to bear oral arguments, in 1hih

ase the !ourt shall issue the orresponding order or notie to that effet.

$ailure to observe the above@speified periods shall be suffiient ause for

dismissal of the motion for reonsideration or stri2ing out of the ans1er

andor the supporting arguments, as the ase may be. (s amended pril

3?, -6, !ourt of "ndustrial %elations.).

s implemented and enfored in atual pratie, this rule, as everyone a8uainted 1ith

proeedings in the industrial ourt 1ell 2no1s, preisely permits the party aggrieved bya *udgment to file no more than a pro@forma motion for reonsideration 1ithout any

argument or lengthy disussion and 1ith barely a brief statement of the fundamental

ground or grounds therefor, 1ithout pre*udie to supplementing the same by ma2ing

the neessary e&position, 1ith itations la1s and authorities, in the 1ritten arguments

the be filed (?) days later. "n truth, suh a pro@forma motion has to effet of *ust

advising the ourt and the other party that the movant does not agree 1ith the

*udgment due to fundamental defets stated in brief and general terms. Evidently, the

purpose of this re8uirement is to apprise everyone onerned 1ithin the shortest

possible time that a reonsideration is to sought, and thereby enable the parties

onerned to ma2e 1hatever ad*ustments may be 1arranted by the situation, in the

mean1hile that the litigation is prolonged. "t must borne in mind that ases in the

industrial ourt may involve affet the operation of vital industries in 1hih labor@

management problems might re8uire day@to@day solutions and it is to the best interests

of *ustie and onerned that the attitude of eah party at every imports *unture of the

ase be 2no1n to the other so that both avenues for earlier settlement may, if possible,

be e&plored.


39/67

There an be no reason at all to omplain that the time fi&ed by the rule is short or

inade8uate. "n fat, the motion filed petitioners 1as no more than the follo1ing>

8O(IO %O6 6ECOSIDE6A(IO

!OME #OD movant respondents, through ounsel, to this Honorable

!ourt most respetfully moves for the %E!O#9"=E%T"O# of the Order ofthis Honorable !ourt dated 9eptember 4, -- on the ground that the

same is not in aordane 1ith la1, evidene and fats addued during the

hearing of the above entitled ase.

Movant@respondents most respetfully move for leave to file their

respetive arguments 1ithin ten (?) days pursuant to 9etion 6, J 4

as amended of the %ules of !ourt.

DHE%E$O%E, it is respetfully prayed that this Motion for %eonsiderationbe admitted.

Manila, 9eptember 34, --.

To say that five (6) days is an unreasonable period for the filing of suh a

motion is to me simply inomprehensible. Dhat 1orse in this ase is that

petitioners have not even ta2en the trouble of giving an e&planation of their

inability to omply 1ith the rule. #ot only that, petitioners 1ere also late five

(6) days in filing their 1ritten arguments in support of their motion, and, theonly e&use offered for suh delay is that both the President of the +nion

and the offie ler2 1ho too2 harge of the matter forgot to do 1hat they

1ere instruted to do by ounsel, 1hih, aording to this !ourt, as " shall

e&plain anon Iis the most ha2neyed and habitual subterfuge employed by

litigants 1ho fail to observe the proedural re8uirements presribed by the

%ules of !ourtI. (Philippine irlines, "n. vs. ra, infra). nd yet, very

indignantly, the main opinion 1ould 1ant the !ourt to overloo2 suh

nonhalane and indifferene.

"n this onnetion, " might add that in my onsidered opinion, the rules fi&ing periods

for the finality of *udgments are in a sense more substantive than proedural in their

real nature, for in their operation they have the effet of either reating or terminating

rights pursuant to the terms of the partiular *udgment onerned. nd the fat that the

ourt that rendered suh final *udgment is deprived of *urisdition or authority to alter or

modify the same enhanes suh substantive harater. Moreover, beause they have


40/67

the effet of terminating rights and the enforement thereof, it may be said that said

rules parta2e of the nature also of rules of presription, 1hih again are substantive.

#o1, the t1in prediates of presription are ination or abandonment and the passage

of time or a presribed period. On the other hand, prorastination or failure to at on

time is un8uestionably a form of abandonment, partiularly 1hen it is not or annot be

suffiiently e&plained. The most valuable right of a party may be lost by presription,

and be has no reason to omplain beause publi poliy demands that rights must beasserted in time, as other1ise they an be deemed 1aived.

" see no *ustifiation 1hatsoever for not applying these self@evident priniples to the

ase of petitioners. Hene, " feel disinlined to adopt the suggestion that the !ourt

suspend, for the purposes of this ase the rules afore8uoted of the !ourt of "ndustrial

%elations. Besides, " have grave doubts as to 1hether 1e an suspend rules of other

ourts, partiularly that is not under our supervisory *urisdition, being administrative

ageny under the E&eutive =epartment Dithal, if, in order to hasten the administrationof substane *ustie, this !ourt did e&erise in some instanes its re po1er to amend

its rules, " am positively ertain, it has done it for the purpose of reviving a ase in

1hih the *udo has already beome final and e&eutory.

Before losing, it may be mentioned here, that as averred their petition, in a belated

effort to salvage their Petitioners filed in the industrial ourt on Otober

De find merit in P'As petition. The e&use offered respondent 9antos as

reason for his failure to perfet in due time appeal from the *udgment of the

Muniipal !ourt, that ounselAs ler2 forgot to hand him the ourt notie, is

the most ha2neyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants 1ho fail

to observe proedural re8uirements presribed by the %ules of !ourt. The

unritial aeptane of this 2ind of ommon plae e&uses, in the fae of


41/67

the 9upreme !ourtAs repeated rulings that they are neither redible nor

onstitutive of e&usable negligene (aerlan vs. Bernal, '@0?


42/67

%espondent ourtAs en banc resolution dismissing petitionersA motion for

reonsideration for having been filed t1o days late, after e&piration of the reglementary

five@day period fi&ed by its rules, due to the negligene of petitionersA ounsel andor

the union president should li2e1ise be set aside as a manifest at of grave abuse of

disretion. PetitionersA petition for relief from the normal adverse onse8uenes of the

late filing of their motion for reonsideration due to suh negligene ; 1hih 1as not

ated upon by respondent ourt ; should have been granted, onsidering themonstrous in*ustie that 1ould other1ise be aused the petitioners through their

summary dismissal from employment, simply beause they sought in good faith to

e&erise basi human rights guaranteed them by the !onstitution. "t should be noted

further that no proof of atual loss from the one@day stoppage of 1or2 1as sho1n by

respondent ompany, providing basis to the main opinionAs premise that its insistene

on dismissal of the union leaders for having inluded the first shift 1or2ers in the mass

demonstration against its 1ishes 1as but an at of arbitrary vinditiveness.

Only thus ould the basi onstitutional rights of the individual petitioners and the

onstitutional in*untion to afford protetion to labor be given true substane and

meaning. #o person may be deprived of suh basi rights 1ithout due proess ;

1hih is but Iresponsiveness to the supremay of reason, obediene to the ditates of

*ustie. #egatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided ... =ue proess

is thus hostile to any offiial ation marred by la2 of reasonableness. !orretly it has

been identified as freedom from arbitrariness.I

ordingly, " vote for the setting aside of the appealed orders of the respondent ourtand onur in the *udgment for petitioners as set forth in the main opinion.

&epa8ae Opinions

B)RRE,O# J., dissenting>

" bo1 in respetful and sinere admiration, but my sense of duty ompels me to

dissent.

The ba2ground of this ase may be found prinipally in the stipulation of fats upon

1hih the deision under revie1 is based. "t is as follo1s>


43/67

. That omplainant Philippine Blooming Mills, !ompany, "n., is a

orporation e&isting and operating under and by virtue of the la1s of the

Philippines 1ith orporate address at Muelle de Binondo, Manila,

1hih is the employer of respondent7

3. That Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization PBMEO for

short, is a legitimate labor organization, and the respondents herein areeither offiers of respondent PBMEO or members thereof7

?? M ;

3>?? PM 1or2ers as 1ell as those 1or2ing in the regular shifts (4>?? .M. to

0>?? PM and 5>?? M to 6>?? PM in the morning of Marh 0, --7


!ompany> () Mr. rthur '. ng, (3) tty. !esareo 9. de 'eon, :r. (


44/67

(Marh 0, --) shall be dismissed, beause suh failure is a violation of

the e&isting !B and, therefore, 1ould be amounting to an illegal stri2e7

4. That at about 6>?? P.M. on Marh .


45/67

fter due hearing, the ourt rendered *udgment, the dispositive part of 1hih readAs>

"# "ED HE%EO$, the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Employees

Organization is found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and is hereby ordered

to ease and desist from further ommitting the same and its

representatives namely> respondent $lorenio Padrigano, %ufino %o&as,

Mariano de 'eon, senion Paiente, Bonifaio auna, Ben*amin Pagu,#ianor Tolentino and %odulfo Monsod 1ho are diretly responsible for

perpetrating this unfair labor pratie at, are hereby onsidered to have

lost their status as employees of the Philippine Blooming Mills, "n. (p. 5,

nne& $.)

lthough it is alleged in the petition herein that petitioners 1ere notified of this deision

on 9eptember 3


46/67

ugust , -


47/67

3. But has that *udgment reahed the stage of finality in the sense that it

an no longer, be disturbedK

!"% %ules of Proedure, as amended, and the *urisprudene of this !ourt

both ans1er the 8uestion in the affirmative.

9etion 6 of the !"% %ules re8uires that one 1ho see2s to reonsider the*udgment of the trial *udge must do so 1ithin five (6) days from the date on

1hih he reeived notie of the deision, sub*et of the motion. #e&t follo1s

9etion 1hih says that the motion must be submitted 1ith arguments

supporting the same. But if said arguments ould not be submitted

simultaneously 1ith the motion, the same setion ommands the Athe

movant shall file the same 1ithin ten (?) days from the date of the filing of

his motion for reonsideration.A 9etion 4 of the same rules admonishes a

movant that I(f)ailure to observe the above@speified periods shall be

suffiient ause for dismissal of the motion for reonsideration or stri2ing

out of the ans1er andor the supporting arguments, as the ase may beI.

#ot that the foregoing rules stand alone. :urisprudene has sine stabilized

the enforeability thereof. Thus, in Bien vs. Castillo, (-4 Phil. -6) 1e ruled

that 1here a pro forma motion for reonsideration 1as filed out of time its

denial is in order pursuant to !"% rules, regardless of 1hether the

arguments in support of said motion 1ere or 1ere not filed on time.

Pangasinan Employees 'aborers J Tenants ssoiation (PE'T) vs.Martinez, ('@


48/67

filed on time. $or, ugust , the end of the five@day reglementary period to

file a motion for reonsideration, 1as a 9unday. But, atually, the 1ritten

arguments in support of the said motion 1ere submitted to the ourt on

ugust 34. The period from ugust 3 to ugust 34, is a spae of fifteen

(6) days. 9urely enough, said arguments 1ere filed out of time ; five (6)

days late. nd the *udgment had beome final.


49/67

hosen not only to go into the merits of petitionersA pose that the respondent ourt

erred in holding them guilty of bargaining in bad faith but also to ultimately uphold

petitionersA laim for reinstatement on onstitutional grounds.

Preisely beause the onlusions of the main opinion are prediated on an e&position

of the onstitutional guarantees of freedoms of speeh and peaeful assembly for

redress of grievanes, so sholarly and masterful that it is bound to over1helm +sunless De note arefully the real issues in this ase, " am onstrained, over and above

my sinere admiration for the elo8uene and zeal of Mr. :ustie Ma2asiarAs brilliant

dissertation, to dutifully state that as presented by petitioners themselves and in the

light of its attendant irumstanes, this ase does not all for the resolution of any

onstitutional issue. dmittedly, the invoation of any onstitutional guarantee,

partiularly 1hen it diretly affets individual freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights,

deserves the losest attention of this !ourt. "t is my understanding of onstitutional la1

and *udiial praties related thereto, ho1ever, that even the most valuable of ouronstitutional rights may be proteted by the ourts only 1hen their *urisdition over the

sub*et matter is un8uestionably established and the appliable rules of proedure

onsistent 1ith substantive and proedural due proess are observed. #o doubt no

onstitutional right an be sarified in the altar of proedural tehnialities, very often

fittingly do1ngraded as nieties but as far as " 2no1, this priniple is applied to annul or

set aside final *udgments only in ases 1herein there is a possible denial of due

proess. " have not ome aross any instane, and none is mentioned or ited in the

1ell@doumented main opinion, 1herein a final and e&eutory *udgment has been

invalidated and set aside upon the ground that the same has the effet of santioning

the violation of a onstitutional right, unless suh violation amounts to a denial of due

proess.

Dithout support from any provision of the onstitution or any la1 or from any *udiial

preedent or reason of priniple, the main opinion nudely and un8ualifiedly asserts, as

if it 1ere universally established and aepted as an absolute rule, that the violation of

a onstitutional right divests the ourt of *urisdition7 and as a onse8uene its

*udgment is null and void and onfers no rightsI. Chave$ vs. Co"rt of Appeals, 309!%


50/67

denied his re8uest to be allo1ed to present evidene to establish his defense after his

demurrer to the PeopleAs evidene 1as denied.

s may be seen, ho1ever, the onstitutional issues involved in those ases are a far

ry from the one no1 before +s. Here, petitioners do not laim they 1ere denied due

proess. #or do they pretend that in denying their motion for reonsideration, Ithe

respondent !ourt of "ndustrial %elations and private firm trenhed upon any of theironstitutional immunities ...,I ontrary to the statement to suh effet in the main

opinion. "ndeed, neither in the petition herein nor in any of the other pleading of

petitioners an any diret or indiret assertion be found assailing the impugned

deision of the respondent ourt as being null and void beause it santioned a denial

of a valued onstitutional liberty.

"n their petition, petitioners state the issue for Our resolution as follo1s>

Petitioners herein humbly submit that the issue to be resolved is 1hether ornot the respondent !ourten banc under the fats and irumstanes,

should onsider the Motion for %eonsideration filed by your petitioners.

Petitioners, therefore, in filing this petition for a 1rit of ertiorari, humbly beg

this Honorable !ourt to treat this petition under %ule 0< and 6 of the %ules

of !ourt.

&&& &&& &&&

The basi issue therefore is the appliation by the !ourt en ban of the

strit and narro1 tehnial rules of proedure 1ithout ta2ing into aount

*ustie, e8uity and substantial merits of the ase.

On the other hand, the omplete argument submitted by petitioners on this

point in their brief runs thus>

"""

"99+E9

. =oes the refusal to heed a 1arning in the e&erise of a fundamental right

to peaeably assemble and petition the government for redress of

grievanes onstitute bargaining in bad faithK and,


51/67

=o the fats found by the ourt belo1 *ustify the delaration and onlusion

that the union 1as guilty of bargaining in

001 philippine blooming mills eo v philippine blooming mills co and cir

Documents