Almira v. B.F. Goodrich Philippines, INC.
Mass Picketing | Security of Tenure | Labor Code
PETITIONERS: P. A. ALMIRA ET AL.
RESPONDENTS: B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC., COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and HONORABLE JOAQUIN SALVADOR
SUMMARY: On April 20, 1971, Almira et al. conducted a Mass Picketing at
the company’s premises in Makati and Marikina, Rizal. During the Mass
Picketing, illegal and unlawful acts were committed by the respondents such as
physically blocking and preventing the entry of complainant’s customers,
supplies and other employees who were not on strike. The basis of their action
was due to management not considering their union as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative. The Judge for the appealed order (Judge Salvador),
ruled that the respondents have committed an illegal strike. As consequence they
lost their status of employment. Almira et al. filed an appeal and their
justification being that picketing though inherently explosive is that not every
form of violence suffices to affix the seal of illegality and shouldn’t result in loss
of employment. Both petitioners and private respondent were both guilty of
being violent. Another justification is that the employees’ loss of employment
was not specifically pin pointing the culprits thus wholesale dismissal of
petitioners is far from warranted as it violates the right of security of tenure of
the employees. With all of these stated, the ruling of the court has reversed and
set aside the appealed order and petitioners with no criminal charges filed in
relation to their acts referred in the decision are to be reinstated to their
employment with right to backpay. Those with filed charges are reinstated only
upon final dismissal of their case or acquittal.
Whether or not there is a legality or illegality of the strike conducted by the
petitioners. And Whether or not the petitioners loss of status of employment
was a valid action from BF Goodrich.
DOCTRINE:
Not every form of violence suffices to affix the seal of illegality on a strike or to
cause the loss of employment by the guilty party. The stress on security of tenure
is a notable feature of the present constitution. The state assures worker’s security
of tenure. Thus a penalty less punitive would suffice. For unemployment brings
untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner.
Labor law determinations, should be not only secundum rationem (according to
reason) but also secundum caritatem (according to charitable heart)
FACTS
(Before appeal)
1. April 20, 1971 employees of BF Goodrich conducted Mass
Picketing in the premises of Makati, and Marikina, Rizal. On the
grounds that the management would not consider their union as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative.
2. During Mass Picketing, illegal and unlawful acts were committed
by the respondents (Almira) such as physically blocking and
preventing the entry of complainant’s customer’s supplies and other
employees who were not on strike. Injuries were likewise inflicted
on certain employees of complainant.
3. All employees not participating in the illegal strike to report for
work on or before April 23, 1971, otherwise such failure will be
considered as participation
4. January 3, 1972, Mass picketing with the employment of
intimidatory statements
5. January 13, 1972, roof of the complainants Makati Recap Plant was
set on fire.
6. All of the above stated has made Judge Salvador declare that the
respondents have committed an illegal strike which led to the loss
of status of employment.
(the appeal itself of Almira et al.)
1. February 4, 1972 appealed order was handed down
2. Even on the assumption of the illegality of the strike, there need not
be the automatic termination of the employment relationship.
Especially in view of the present constitution as to the Security of
Tenure
3. Strike being by its very nature… coercive…
a. It is an economic weapon at war with the policy of the
Constitution and the law
4. There were injuries on both sides, management did not, play a
passive role confronted as it was with the unruly disruptive tactics
of labor
5. Almira et al. filed criminal cases against management.
Complainants did not press charges and the cases were dismissed.
- It does not appear as to who of the petitioners were found
guilty committing serious acts of violence.
-
-
It merely referred to the instances of picketing conducted
illegally without specifically pin-pointing the culprits to
whom such kind of conduct could be ascribed
Thus, wholesale dismissal of petitioners is far from
warranted.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not there is a legality or illegality of the strike conducted
by the petitioners.
2. Whether or not the petitioners loss of status of employment was a
valid action from BF Goodrich.
RULING:
1. appealed order of February 4, 1972 as affirmed in a resolution of
March 14, 1972 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
2. Petitioners against whom no criminal charges filed in relation to
their acts referred to in this decision are still pending are ordered
REINSTATED TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT, with the RIGHT
TO BACKPAY corresponding to eighteen (18) months
3. petitioners against whom criminal complaints have been filed
shall be REINSTATED, with the RIGHT TO BACKPAY as
herein indicated, only upon the final dismissal of said cases or
their acquittal therein
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
1. Labor law determinations should be not only secundum
rationem but also secundum caritatem
- Where a decision may be made to rest an informed judgment rather
than rigid rules, all equities of the case must be accorded their due
weight.
- Labor law determinations should be not only according to reason
but also according to charitable heart.
2. Article 2, Section 9 of the (1973) Constitution
- "The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full
employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed and regulate the
relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure
the rights of workers to self organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work. The
State may provide for compulsary arbitration."
3. Security Of Tenure
- It is thus clear that not every form of violence suffices to affix the
seal of illegality on a strike or to cause the loss of employment by
the guilty party.
- The strike could have been viewed wit a little less disapproval and
even if declared illegal, does not need to lead to termination of
employment relationship
4. Responsibility should be individual and not collective
- A strike otherwise valid, if violent in character, may be placed
beyond the pale. Care is to be taken, however, especially where an
unfair labor practice is involved, to avoid stamping it with
illegality just because it is tainted by such acts. To avoid rendering
illusory the recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such
should be individual and not collective
CBTC Employees Union v. Clave
Legal Holiday Pay | Labor Code
PETITIONERS: CBTC EMPLOYEES UNION.
RESPONDENTS:
HONORABLE
JACOBO
C.
CLAVE,
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, and COMMERCIAL
BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUMMARY: The CBTC Employees Union filed a petition for certiorari
seeking to annul the & set aside the decision of the respondent about not
requiring for monthly paid employees to be included in receiving “legal
holiday pay.”
The union filed a complaint against the respondent (Comtrust) for nonpayment of the holiday pay benefits. Provided under Article 95 of the
Labor Code in relation to Rule X, Book III of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code.
The Department of Labor made an Interpretive Bulletin stating to exclude
permanent workers similarly situated as the employees of Comtrust from
coverage of the holiday pay benefit. The Union filed a manifestation
stating that this interpretive bulletin is contrary to the law itself and that it
should not bar the right of the union to claim for its holiday pay benefits.
The Section 2 Rule IV, Book 111, of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing particularly Art. 94 of the LC, states that employees who
are paid by the month shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the
month. But this presumption is merely disputable and evidence to contrary
may destroy such presumption. The bank asserts that holiday pay is
intended only for daily-paid workers, however, the words used in the
Decree are “every worker” meaning it does not expressly exclude monthly
paid employees and is not included in the enumeration of the exception.
The Arbitrator ruled that monthly paid employees are entitled to such
holiday pay benefits. But the Bank then again, filed motion for
reconsideration contending that arbitrator demonstrated gross
incompetence and/or grave abuse of discretion. Again the Union filed a
petition. Finally, the court declared that the aforementioned section of the
Interpretive bulletin is null and void, since the promulgation of the sec of
labor is in excess of his rule making authority.
Whether or not the permanent employees of the Bank within the
collective bargaining unit paid on a monthly basis, are entitled to
holiday pay
DOCTRINE:
Section 2, Rule IV, Book III (art. 94) of the Integrated Rules and the
Secretary’s Policy Instruction no. 9 stating whom holiday pay benefits
should apply, although they add another excluded group w/c are
employees are paid monthly it is only a presumption that all monthly paid
employees have already been paid holiday pay.
Article 4 of the Labor Code – all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of Labor Code , including its implementing
rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor
An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of labor of
more than what the statute delimits or withholds is obviously ultra vires
(beyond the powers)
FACTS:
1. Commercial Bank and Trust Company Employees' Union lodged a
complaint with the Department of Labor, against Commercial trust
Bank for non-payment of the holiday pay benefits provided for
under Art 95 of the Labor Code in relation to Rule X, Book III of
the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. Failing to
arrive at an amicable settlement at conciliation level, the parties
opted to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration.
2. In addition, the disputants signed a Submission Agreement
stipulating as final, unappealable and executory the decision of the
Arbitrator, including subsequent issuances for clarificatory and/or
relief purposes, notwithstanding Article 262 of the Labor Code.
3. The Union filed a Manifestation stating that in the event that said
Interpretative Bulletin regarding holiday pay would be adverse to
the present claim union respectfully reserves the right to take such
action as may be appropriate to protect its interests, a question of
law being involved. An Interpretative Bulletin which was inexistent
at the time they said commitment was made and which maybe
contrary to the law itself should not bar the right of the union to
claim for its holiday pay benefits.
4. Voluntary Arbitrator stated that, there is more reason to believe that,
if the Bank has never made any deduction from its monthly-paid
employees for unworked Saturdays, Sundays, legal and special
holidays, it is because there is really nothing to deduct properly
since the monthly salary never really included pay for such
unworked days-and which give credence to the conclusion that the
divisor '250' is the proper one to use in computing the equivalent
daily rate of the monthly-paid employees; that “both the decree itself
and the Rules mentioned enumerated the excepted workers.
a. It is a basic rule of statutory construction that putting an
exception limits or modifies the enumeration or meaning
made in the law. It is thus easy to see that a mere reading of
the Decree and of the Rules would show that the monthlypaid employees of the Bank arenot expressly included in the
enumeration of the exception.
5. Voluntary Arbitrator directed the bank to pay its monthly paid
employees their “legal holiday pay.”
6. The next day, the Department of Labor released Policy Instructions
No. 9 which clarifies controversies on the entitlement of monthly
paid employees. The new determining rule is this: If the monthly
paid employee is receiving not less than P 240, the maximum
monthly minimum wage, and his monthly pay is uniform from
January to December, he is presumed to be already paid the ten (10)
paid legal holidays. However, if deductions are made from his
monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur,
then he is still entitled to the ten (10) paid legal holidays
ISSUE/S: Whether the permanent employees of the Bank within the
collective bargaining unit paid on a monthly basis, are entitled to holiday
pay effective November 1, 1974, pursuant to Article 95 (now Article 94)
of the Labor Code, as amended, and Rule X (now Rule IV), Book III of
the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code
RULING:
1. The respondent Presidential Executive Assistant and the Acting
Secretary of labor are hereby set aside
2. Award of Arbitrator reinstated
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
1. Section 2, Rule IV, Book III (art. 94) of the Integrated Rules
(Right to Holiday Pay)
-
-
-
2.
-
-
3.
-
4.
-
5.
-
Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular
holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly
employing less than ten (10) workers;
The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but
such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his
regular rate; and
As used in this Article, “holiday” includes: New Year’s Day,
Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May,
the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the
twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day designated by
law for holding a general election.
SECTION 2. Status of employees paid by the month.
Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the
number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the
statutory or established minimum wage shall be paid for all days in
the month whether worked or not.
For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than
the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by
twelve.
Secretary’s Policy Instruction no. 9
stating whom holiday pay benefits should apply, although they add
another excluded group w/c are employees are paid monthly it is
only a presumption that all monthly paid employees have already
been paid holiday pay.
Article 4 of the Labor Code
all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions
of Labor Code , including its implementing rules and regulations
shall be resolved in favor of labor
Ultra Vires
An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of
labor of more than what the statute delimits or withholds is
obviously ultra vires (beyond the powers)
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing
Salary | Equal Pay for Equal Work | Labor Code
PETITIONERS: INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF
EDUCATORS (ISAE)
RESPONDENTS: HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Secretary of
Labor and Employment; HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity
as the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment; DR. BRIAN
MACCAULEY in his capacity as the Superintendent of International SchoolManila; and INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC.
SUMMARY: The ISAE petitions that the point-of hire classification employed
by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries
to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination. The school grants foreignhires certain benefits no accorded local hires include housing, transportation,
shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. They are also paid a
salary rate 25% more than local hires, with a justification on the foreign-hire’s
“significant economic advantages” When negotiations for a new CBA were
held, ISAE contested the difference in salary rates b/w foreign and local hires.
Petitioner filed a notice of strike. But DOLE resolved the issue in favor of the
school. However, petitioners were able to justify that there is no evidence that
foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently than the local-hires. Foreign-hires
have enough benefits to cover the dislocation factor and limited tenure.
Moreover, to include foreign-hires to bargaining unit with local hires would not
assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.
Thus courts ruled that the point of hire classification employed to justify
distinction b/w salary rates are an invalid classification, and that foreign-hires
do not belong to the same bargaining unit as local hires.
Whether or not foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate
bargaining unit and whether or not the point-of-hire classification
employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of
higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.
DOCTRINE:
While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign hires, salaries
should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires.
FACTS:
1. International School is a domestic educational institution established
primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other
temporary residents
2. The school hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its
faculty classifying them into: foreign-hires and local-hires.
3. The school grants foreign-hires with benefits:
a. Housing, transportation, shipping costs taxes, and home leave
travel allowance.
b. paid a salary rate 25% more than local hires
4. Justification of School: “Two significant economic disadvantages”
a. Dislocation Factor
b. Limited Tenure
5. Compensation scheme is for the school’s adaptive measure to remain
competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent
professionals in the field of international students
6. The ISAE contested the difference in salary rates b/w foreign-hires
and local-hires when negotiations of new CBA was held.
7. ISAE filed a notice of strike to DOLE but dismissed their petition
justifying that the “principle of equal pay for equal work” does not
apply in their case b/c “certain amenities have to be provided to these
people in order to entice them to render their services in the PH
8. The claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by school is
said to be discriminatory to Filipinos, and grant of higher salary to
foreign-hires constitute racial discrimination
a. School disputes claim as their justification being that the
compensation packages given to local-hires has been shown
to apply to all regardless of race, there are foreigners who
have been hired locally and are paid equally as filipino local
hires
9. School contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that localhires perform work equal to that of foreign-hires
a. Court finds this argument cavalier, b/c if employer pays one
employee less than the rest, it iss not for the employee to
explain why he receives less or why others receive more.
10. School has no evidence that foreign-hires perform 25% more
efficiently than the local-hires
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the point-of-hire classification employed by the
School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher
salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.
2. Whether or not foreign-hires should be included in the
appropriate bargaining unit
RULING:
1. Petition is granted in part
2. Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment are reversed
and set aside.
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify
the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an
invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the
services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the
School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public
policy
foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires.
-
-
-
-
1. Salary is compensation for services rendered
Salaries should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of
local-hires. Local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires
and they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter.
2. Article 13 Section 1 of the Constitution
Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment pf measures
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity,
reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove
cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political
power for the common good.
3. Article 19 of the Civil Code
"in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
[to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.”
4. Labor Code
equality of employment opportunities for all
-
State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race
or creed." It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these
provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to
promote and ensure equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes
to unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.
- Art. 135 - prohibits and penalizes 21 the payment of lesser
compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for
work of equal value
- Art. 248 - declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization.
5. International Law
- Springs from general principles of law, likewise proscribes
discrimination
Philippine Airlines, INC v. National Labor Relations Commission
Unfair Labor Practice | Shared Responsibility | Labor Code
PETITIONERS: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL)
RESPONDENTS: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
LABOR ARBITER ISABEL P. ORTIGUERRA and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA)
SUMMARY: the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) completely revised its 1966
Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was
immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected to the
disciplinary measures embodied therein. The PALEA then filed a complaint for
Unfair Labor Practice to NLRC, their justification being that PAL implemented
the code w/o notice & prior discussion w/ Union by Management. PAL then filed
a motion to dismiss complaint. The arbiter rendered a decision of finding no bad
faith on the part of PAL & no unfair labor practice was committed. However,
such rules and regulations must meet the test of “reasonableness, propriety, &
fairnesss” and PAL failed to prove the new Code was amply circulated. Arbiter’s
ruling was that they should circulate the new Code, reconsider the cases
employees were met w/ penalties, and discuss w/ Union objectionable
provisions. PAL appealed to NLRC but the still it was same decision. PAL filed
petition for certiorari charging public respondents. However the court ruled that
the exercise of management prerogatives is not unlimited. Management should
see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its... decisions or
modes of action. For it is a shared responsibility. Thus the court held the petition
of PAL dismissed and the questioned decision affirmed.
Whether or not the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is
a shared responsibility of the employer and the employees.
DOCTRINE:
exercise of managerial prerogatives is not unlimited. It is circumscribed by
limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general
principles of fair play and justice.
Republic Act No. 6715, amending Article 211 of the Labor Code, that the law
explicitly considered it a State policy "(t)o ensure the participation of workers in
decision and policy-making processes affecting their... rights, duties and
welfare." However, even in the absence of said clear provision of law, the
exercise of management prerogatives was never considered boundless.
FACTS:
1. the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) completely revised its 1966
Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees
and was immediately implemented, and some employees were
forthwith subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein.
2. the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) filed a
complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) for unfair labor practice
3. PALEA stating that the implementation of the Code w/o notice &
prior discussion with Union by Management
4. PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in
limited numbers; that being penal in nature the Code must conform
with the requirements of sufficient publication, and that the Code
was arbitrary, oppressive,... and prejudicial to the rights of the
employees.
5. PAL filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting its
prerogative as an employer to prescribe rules and regulations
regarding employees' conduct in carrying out their duties and
functions, and alleging that by implementing the Code, it had not
violated the collective... bargaining agreement (CBA) or any
provision of the Labor Code.
6. Labor Arbiter... rendered finding no bad faith on the part of PAL in
adopting the Code and ruling that no unfair labor practice had been
committed. However, the arbiter held that PAL was "not totally fault
free" considering that while the issuance of... rules and regulations
governing the conduct of employees is a "legitimate management
prerogative" such rules and regulations must meet the test of
"reasonableness, propriety and fairness."
7. She found Section 1 of the Code aforequoted as "an all embracing
and all encompassing... provision that makes punishable any offense
one can think of in the company"; while Section 7, likewise quoted
above, is "objectionable for it violates the rule against double
jeopardy thereby ushering in two or more punishment for the same
misdemeanor." (pp. 38-39, Rollo.)
8. NLRC. found no evidence of unfair labor practice committed by
PAL and affirmed the dismissal of PALEA's charge.
a. we modify the appealed decision in the sense that the New
Code of Discipline should be reviewed and discussed with
complainant union, particularly the disputed provisions
b. respondent is directed to furnish each... employee with a
copy of the appealed Code of Discipline.
c. The pending cases adverted to in the appealed decision if
still in the arbitral level, should be reconsidered by the
respondent Philippine Air Lines. Other dispositions of the
Labor Arbiter are... sustained.
9. PAL then filed the instant petition for certiorari charging public
respondents with grave abuse of discretion in: (a) directing PAL "to
share its management prerogative of formulating a Code of
Discipline" (b) engaging in quasi-judicial legislation in ordering
PAL to share said prerogative with the union; (c) deciding beyond
the issue of unfair labor practice, and (d) requiring PAL to
reconsider pending cases still in the arbitral level
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the formulation of a Code of Discipline among
employees is a shared responsibility of the employer and the
employees.
2. whether management may be compelled to share with the union
or its employees its prerogative of formulating a code of
discipline.
RULING: Petition was dismissed & questioned decision affirmed.
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
1. Republic Act No. 6715, amending Article 211 of the Labor Code,
- that the law explicitly considered it a State policy "(t)o ensure the
participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes
affecting their... rights, duties and welfare." However, even in the
absence of said clear provision of law, the exercise of management
prerogatives was never considered boundless. it was held that
management's prerogatives must... be without abuse of discretion.
o Before amendment: already declared a state policy of
the state to “promote the enlightenment of workers
concerning their rights and obligations as employees.
2. Managerial Prerogatives is not unlimited
- It is circumscribed by limitations found in law, a collective
bargaining agreement, or the general principles of fair play and
justice
- line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding
business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the
employees. In treating the latter, management should see to it that
its employees are at least properly informed of its... decisions or
modes of action
- The exercise by management of its prerogative shall be done in a
just, reasonable, humane and/or lawful manner.
3. Principle of Shared Responsibility (Art. 13 Section 3)
- The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility
between workers and employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace.
- Industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied
their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their
rights.
4. Ignorance of the Law Excuses no one from Compliance
therewith
- This law does not find application in this case, for the employees
were not informed enough of the new implementation of the Code
of Discipline
- To attain effectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be
candidness and openness by Management and participation by the
union
Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine
Blooming Mills
Mass Demonstration | Bill of Rights | Labor Code
PETITIONERS: PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT
ORGANIZATION, NICANOR TOLENTINO, FLORENCIO, PADRIGANO
RUFINO, ROXAS MARIANO DE LEON, ASENCION PACIENTE,
BONIFACIO VACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU and RODULFO MUNSOD
RESPONDENTS: PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. and COURT
OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
SUMMARY: The PBMEO informed the Company that they will be conducting
a Mass Demonstration against the alleged abuses of some Pasig Police as a way
to exercise their constitutional rights of Freedom of Expression, Of Assembly,
and Right to Petition. But The company stated that them continuing with the
demonstration would violate their CBA provision of No Strike No Lookout. The
PBMEO still pushed through the Demonstration. PBMCI filed complaint to the
Court of Industrial Relations and ruled out that the PBMEO is guilty of
bargaining in bad faith and the abovementioned officers as directly responsible
for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice. The PBMEO filed an appeal but
was late (according to 10 days period) but SC considered it since it is a matter of
social justice especially concerning their constitutional rights. The PBMEO’s
justification is that no CBA provisions were violated b/c the demonstration is not
directed to the management but to the alleged abuse of Pasig Police. Another is
that they were just exercising their constitutional right of freedom of expression,
of assembly, and right to petition. In the end. The SC held that the order of the
Court of Industrial Relations as null and void and that the officers of the union
to be reinstated with rights to backpay.
Whether the dismissal of PBMEO officers from their employment
constituted a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of expression,
assembly, and petition.
DOCTRINE:
To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as
evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the
collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment
of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective
bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore
inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free
expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition
FACTS:
1. March 1, 1969 Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization
decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to
express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig
Police.
2. PBMEO informed the company of their proposed demonstration
3. After learning about about PBMEO's plans, Philippine Blooming
Mills Inc. called for a meeting with the leaders of the union. During
the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by PBMEO
4. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu explained that the demonstration was
not a strike against the company.
5. PBM Rep Atty. C.S de Leon acknowledged that the planned
demonstration was an exercise of the laborers' inalienable
constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and
freedom for petition for redress of grievances against police
indignities. However stressed that any demonstration should not
unduly prejudice normal operation of the Company
a. Warned them that (esp. officers of org) that if they fail to
report for work, they shall be dismissed b/c of violation of
existing CBA and would amount to an illegal strike
6. A second meeting took place where the company stressed that those
from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to
participate in the demonstration, instead utilize the workers in the
2nd & 3rd shifts otherwise, they would be dismissed.
a. Provisions of the CBA:
i. Article XXIV: 'NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE'.
ii. All those who will not follow this warning of the
Company shall be dismissed; De Leon reiterated the
Company's warning that the officers shall be
primarily liable being the organizers of the mass
demonstration
7. Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the demonstration took place.
The officers of PBMEO were eventually dismissed by the company
for violation of the "No Strike and No Lockout" clause of their
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
8. On March 4, 1969 PMBCI filed a charge in the Court of Industrial
Relations against petitioners and other employees who composed
the first shift, charging them with a
a. violation of Section 4(a)-6 in relation to Sections 13 and 14,
b. Section 15, all of Republic Act No. 875
c. CBA providing for No Strike and No Lockout
9. Petitioners Claim that they did not violate the existing CBA b/c they
gave prior notice to company of Mass Demonstration. Another is
that they were exercising their constitutional freedom of speech
against alleged abuses of some Pasig Police, and that the
demonstration was not declaration of strike b/c it was not directed
against the management.
10. Order September 15, 1969, found herein petitioner PBMEO guilty
of bargaining in bad faith and the abovementioned officers as
directly responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice
and were, as a consequence, considered to have lost their status as
employees of the respondent Company
-
-
-
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the dismissal of PBMEO officers from their
employment constituted a violation of their constitutional right to
freedom of expression, assembly, and petition.
2. Whether PBMEO violate its CBA’s “No strike, no Lockout”
Provision
-
RULING:
1. Orders of the Respondent Court of Industrial Relations are null
and void and are set aside
2. eight (8) petitioners were directed to be reinstated, with full back
pay from the date of their separation from the service until
reinstated, minus one day's pay and whatever earnings they might
have realized from other sources during their separation from the
service
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice.
Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its
employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged
police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) petitioners
from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on their freedom
of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition for redress of
grievances,
-
1. Article 3 Section 1 and Section 4 of the Bill of Rights
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the laws.” (Sec 1)
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
(Sec 4)
Ratio: To regard the demonstration against police officers, not
against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective
bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining
agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the
demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the
collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting
speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on
the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful
assembly and of petition
2. Freedom of Expression and of Assembly, and the right to
Petition
not only a civil right but also political rights essential to man
enjoyment of his life, to hos happiness and to his full and complete
fulfillment
protects the minority who wants to talk, but also to benefit the
majority who refuse to listen
these freedoms are “delicate and vulnerable” as well as supremely
precious in our society. Human rights are imprescriptible.
3. The Supreme Court held that PBMEO needed even the first and
regular shift workers for the demonstration as their complete
presence in the mass demonstration would generate the maximum
sympathy for the validity of their cause and immediate action on
the part of corresponding agencies.
4. The company’s contention that it would suffer loss by reason of
the absence of the employees from 6 AM – 2 PM is a plea for the
preservation of merely their property rights. The appropriate
penalty that could have been imposed by the company – if it
deserves any penalty at all – should have been simply to charge
the one-day absence of the workers against their vacation or sick
leaves.
5. Section 3 of R.A. No. 875 “Industrial Peace Act”
guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concerted
activities for . . . mutual aid or protection";
- while Section 4(a-1)regards as an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section Three.
6. SC has the inherent power to "suspend its own rules or to except a
particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice
require.” (Estrada vs. Sto. Domingo)
- interpretation of procedural rule should never 'sacrifice the ends of
justice.
- rules of procedure 'are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical
sense'; but are intended 'to help secure substantial justice.'
-
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
Justice Barredo, Dissenting
The judgment of the industrial court sought to be reviewed in the present
case has already become final and executory, when as given in the
abovementioned facts, the petitioners failed to file their motion for
reconsideration within the set reglementary period, nay, not without the
fault of the petitioners, hence, no matter how erroneous from the
constitutional viewpoint it may be, itis already beyond recall, Justice
Barredo vote to dismiss this case
Justice Teehankee, Concurring
-
-
In the case at bar, there could not be, in fact, bargaining in bad faith
nor unfair labor practice since respondent firm conceded that "the
demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the
Constitution" and the union up to the day of the demonstration
pleaded by cablegram to the company to excuse the first shift and
allow it to join the demonstration in accordance with their previous
requests.
Neither could there be, in law, a willful violation of the collective
bargaining agreement's "no-strike" clause as would warrant the
union leaders' dismissal, since as found by respondent court itself
the mass demonstration was not a declaration of a strike, there being
no industrial dispute between the protagonists, but merely "the
occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work" to enable the workers
-
to exercise their constitutional rights of free expression, peaceable
assembly and petition for redress of grievance against alleged police
excesses.
Respondent court's en banc resolution dismissing petitioners'
motion for reconsideration for having been filed two days late, after
expiration of the reglementary five-day period fixed by its rules, due
to the negligence of petitioners' counsel and/or the union president
should likewise be set aside as a manifest act of grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioners' petition for relief from the normal adverse
consequences of the late filing of their motion for reconsideration
due to such negligence — which was not acted upon by respondent
court — should have been granted, considering the monstrous
injustice that would otherwise be caused the petitioners through
their summary dismissal from employment, simply because they
sought in good faith to exercise basic human rights guaranteed them
by the Constitution. It should be noted further that no proof of actual
loss from the one day stoppage of work was shown by respondent
company, providing basis to the main opinion's premise that its
insistence on dismissal of the union leaders for having included the
first shift workers in the mass demonstration against its wishes was
but an act of arbitrary vindictiveness.