1PBMEO v PBMO Yes.

The decision of the CIR to dismiss the petition based on technicality

(being 2 days late) was rendered null and void. The constitutional rights have
FACTS
dominance over procedural rules. And, the company was directed to
Petitioners on decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang Palace reinstate the eight officers with full backpay from date of separation minus
to be participated in by the workers in the first shift from 6AM to 2PM) as the one day's pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from
well as those in the regular second and third shifts (from 7AM to 4PM and other sources during their separation from service. (The removal from
from 8AM to 5PM, respectively). PBMEO duly informed the respondent employment of the officers were deemed too harsh a punishment for their
company of their proposed demonstration. A meeting was called by the actions)
company in the presence of Mr. Arthur L. Ang and Atty. De Leon Jr and all
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human
the department and section heads. It must be noted that thru Atty. De Leon
rights over property rights is recognized. Property and property rights can
(company personnel manager) informed PBMEO that the demonstration is
be lost through prescriptions, but human rights are imprescriptible, and to
an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but
regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the
emphasized however that any demonstration for that matter should not
Pasig Police, not against the company is gross vindictiveness on the part of
unduly prejudice the normal operations of the company. They warned
the employer.
PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular
shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the company, Notes:
particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the
The rally was not against the company and therefore there is no violation of
demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning shall
the no strike-no lockout provision of their CBA. To charge PBMEO of
be dismissed because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA which
bargaining in bad faith extends the jurisdiction of the CBA and inhibits
amounts to an illegal strike. Representatives of PBMEO during the meeting
freedom of speech. The company failed to protect its employees from the
properly explained that the demonstration has nothing to do with the
Pasig police’s abuse of power, went to the extent of dismissing their
company because the union has no quarrel with the management.
employees, and instead prioritized material losses. Moreover, CIR could have
In a decision penned by Judge Joaquin Salvador of the Court of Industrial easily accepted the motion for reconsideration. Procedural rules do not
Relations, eight of the Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization supersede the Constitution and may be overruled in a bid to achieve justice,
(PBMEO) officers were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and were thus especially in cases of free speech.
removed as employees of PBM. PBMEO filed a motion for reconsideration,
which CIR dismissed the motion for passing two days late from the 10-day
deadline the court allowed.

ISSUE: WON the case dismissal as a consequence of a procedural fault

violates due process; WON the CIR and PBM Co. Inc. violated PBMEO’s
freedom of expression and assembly on the grounds that PBM Co. illegally
dismissed its employees for participating in a mass demonstration

RULING