Same; Same.

The freedoms of expression and almost as potently as the actual application of

of assembly as well as the right to petition are sanctions," they "need breathing space to
No. L-31195. June 5, 1973. included among the immunities reserved by the survive," permitting government regulation only
sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of "with narrow specificity." Property and property
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES
Justice Holmes, to protect the ideas that we rights can be lost thru prescription; but human
ORGANIZATION, NICANOR
abhor or hate more than the ideas we cherish; rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are
TOLENTINO,FLORENCIO PADRIGANO,RUFINO,
or as Socrates insinuated, not only to protect extinguished by the passage of time, then the
ROXAS,MARIANO DE LEON,ASENCION
the minority who want to talk, but also to Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the
PACIENTE,BONIFACIO VACUNA,BENJAMIN
benefit the majority who refuse to listen. And power of government and ceases to be an
PAGCU and RODULFO MUNSOD, petitioners,
as Justice Douglas cogently stresses it, the efficacious shield against the tyranny of
vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC.and
liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the officials, of majorities, of the influential and
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties powerful, and of oligarchspolitical, economic
respondents.
of all are protected. or otherwise.
Political and Constitutional Law; Basic concepts
Same; Same.The rights of free expression, Same; Same; Same; Freedom of assembly and
and principles underlying a democracy.In a
free assembly and petition, are not only civil expression occupy a preferred position.In the
democracy, the preservation and enhancement
rights but also political rights essential to man's hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free
of the dignity and worth of the human
enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
personality is the central core as well as the
full and complete fulfillment. Thru these position as they are essential to the
cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The
freedoms the citizens can participate not preservation and vitality of our civil and political
inviolable character of man as an individual
merely in the periodic establishment of the institutions; and such "priority gives these
must be "protected to the largest possible
government through their suffrage but also in liberties the sanctity and the sanction not
extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the
the administration of public affairs as well as in permitting dubious intrusions."
citadel of his person."
the discipline of abusive public officers. The
citizen is accorded these rights so that he can Same; Same; Same; Why human civil liberties
Same; Purpose of Bill of Rights.The Bill of
appeal to the appropriate governmental officers more superior than property rights disclosed.
Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of
or agencies for redress and protection as well as The superiority of these freedoms over property
liberty, equality and security "against the
for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on rights is underscored by the fact that a mere
assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the
erring public officers and employees. reasonable or rational relation between the
passing hour, the erosion of small
means employed by the law and its object or
encroachments, and the scorn and derision of
Same; Same; Human rights supreme to property purposethat the law is neither arbitrary nor
those who have no patience with general
rights.While the Bill of Rights also protects discriminatory nor oppressivewould suffice to
principles." The purpose of the Bill of Rights is
property rights, the primacy of human rights validate a law which restricts or impairs
to "withdraw subjects from the vicissitudes of
over property rights is recognized. Because property rights. On the other hand, a
political controversy, to place them beyond the
these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as constitutional or valid infringement of human
reach of majorities and officials, and to
well as supremely precious in our society" and rights requires a more stringent criterion,
establish them as legal principles to be applied
the "threat of sanctions may deter their namely, existence of a grave and immediate
by the courts..."
exercise danger of a substantive evil which the State has
the right to prevent. So it has been stressed in
the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in
Gonzales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the
writer of the opinion in Imbong vs. Ferrer. It
should be noted that Mr. Justice Barredo in
Gonzales vs. Comelec, like Justices Douglas,
Black and Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs.
Sullivan, believes that the freedoms of speech
and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly
and of petition for redress of grievances are
absolute when directed against public officials
or "when exercised in relation to our right to
choose the men and women by whom we shall
be governed," even as Mr. Justice Castro relies
on the balancing-of-interest test. Chief Justice
Vinson is partial to the improbable danger rule
formulated by Chief Judge Learned Hand, viz.
whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by
its improbability, justifies such invasion of free
expression as is necessary to avoid the danger.
Same; Same; Same; Labor Law; Workers who
joined a demonstration against police abuses
did not violate CBA "no-strike no-lockout"
provision.Tested against the foregoing
principles, the Philippine Blooming Mills
Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming
Mills Co., Inc
conclusion of the Court of Industrial Relations
that the petitioners by their "concerted act and
the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of
Work," are guilty of bargaining in bad faith and
hence violated the collective bargaining
agreement cannot be sustained. The
demonstration held by petitioners on March 4,
1969 before Malacanang was against alleged
abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against
their employer, herein private respondent firm.
Said demonstration was purely and completely
an exercise of their freedom of expression in
general and of their right of assembly and of
petition for redress of grievances in particular
before appropriate governmental agency, the
Chief Executive, against the police officers of
the municipality of Pasig.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is the duty of
employer to protect employees against police
abuses.As a matter of fact, it was the duty of
herein respondent firm to protect herein
petitioner Union and its members from the
harassment of local police officers. It was to the
interest of herein respondent firm to rally to the
defense of, and to take up the cudgels for, its
employees, so that they can report to work free
from harassment, vexation or peril and as a
consequence perform more efficiently their
respective tasks to enhance its productivity as
well as profits.
Same; Same; Same; Demonstration against
police abuses not a violation of collective
bargaining agreement.As heretofore stated,
the primacy of human rightsfreedom of
expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition
for redress of grievancesover property rights
has been sustained. Emphatic reiteration of this
basic tenet as a coveted boonat once the
shield and armor of the dignity and worth of the
human personality, the all-consuming ideal of
our enlightened civilizationbecomes Our
Duty, if freedom and social justice have any
meaning at all for him who toils so that capital
can produce economic goods that can generate
happiness for all. 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.
Same; Demonstration against police abuses
could not have been enjoined by any court.
The mass demonstration staged by the
employees on March 4, 1969 could not have
been legally enjoined by any court, for such an
injunction would be trenching upon the
freedom of expression of the workers, even if it
legally appears to be an illegal picketing or
strike.
Same; Labor Law; All employees of a firm and
not merely those belonging to a particular shift
may join demonstration.The respondent firm
claims that there was no need for all its
employees to participate in the demonstration
and that they suggested to the Union that only
the first and regular shift from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.
should report for work in order that loss or
damage to the firm will be averted. This stand
failed to appreciate the sine qua non of an
effective demonstration especially by a labor
union, namely, the complete unity of the Union
members as well as their total presence at the
demonstration site in order to generate the
maximum persuasive force that will gain for
them not only public sympathy for the validity
of their cause but also immediate action on the
part of the corresponding government agencies
with jurisdiction over the issues they raised
against the local police. Circulation is one of the
aspects of freedom of expression. If
demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then
by that much the circulation of the issues raised
by the demonstration is diminished. ... At any
rate, the Union notified the company two days
in advance of their projected demonstration
and the company could have made
arrangements to counteract or prevent
whatever losses it might sustain by reason of
the absence of its workers for one day,
especially in this case when the Union
requested it to excuse only the day shift
employees who will join the demonstration. ...
There was a lack of human understanding or
compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting
the request... And to regard as a ground for
dismissal the mass demonstration held against
the Pasig police, not against the company, is
gross vindictiveness on the part of the
employer, which is as unchristian as it is
unconstitutional.
Same; Same; Employer who refuses its
employees to join demonstration against police
abuse 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 petitioners from the service constituted
an unconstitutional restraint on their freedom
of expression, freedom of assembly and
freedom of petition for redress of grievances,
the respondent firm committed an unfair labor
practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to
Section 3 of R.A. No. 875, otherwise known as
the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of R.A. 875
guarantees to the employees the right "to
engage in concerted activities for xxx 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." xxx The insistence on the part of
the respondent firm that the workers for the
morning and regular shifts should not
participate in the mass demonstration, under
pain of dismissal, was as heretofore state, "a
potent means of inhibiting speech."
Evidence; Lack of finding the company did not
suffer any loss means not such loss was
sustained.While the respondent Court found
that the demonstration "paralyzed to a large
extent the operations of the complainant
company," the said court did not make any
finding as to the fact of loss actually sustained
by the firm. This significant circumstance can
only means that the firm did not sustain any
loss or damage.
Constitutional and Political Law; Labor Law;
Dismissal from work of leaders of
demonstration against police abuses constitutes
denial of social justice. Section 5 of Article II
of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the
promotion of social justice to insure the well-
being and economic security of all of the
people," which guarantee is emphasized by the
other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the
Constitution that "the State shall afford
protection to labor xxx". Respondent Court as
an agency of the State is under obligation at all
times to give meaning and substance to these
constitutional guarantees in favor of the
working man; for otherwise these constitutional
safeguards would be merely a lot of
"meaningless constitutional patter." Under the
Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial
Relations is enjoined to effect the policy of the
law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest
by encouraging and protecting the exercise by
employees of their right to self-organization for
the purpose of collective bargaining and for the
promotion of their moral, social and economic
well-being." It is most unfortunate that said
court failed to implement this policy.xxx
Same; When a court acts against the
Constitution, its judgments and orders become
null and void.Having violated the basic human
rights of the laborers, the Court of Industrial
Relations ousted itself of jurisdiction and the
questioned orders it issued in the instant case
are a nullity.
Same; CIR rules against late filing of a motion
for reconsideration cannot prevail over basic
constitutional rights.Does the mere fact that
the motion for reconsideration was filed two
days late defeat the rights of the petitioning
employees for their reinstatement? The answer
should be obvious in the light of the aforecited
cases. To accord supremacy to the foregoing
rules of the Court of Industrial Relations over
basic human rights sheltered by the
Constitution, is not only incompatible with the
basic tenet of constitutional government that
the Constitution is superior to any statute or
subordinate rules and regulations, but also does
violence to natural reason and logic. The
dominance and superiority of the constitutional
right over the aforesaid court procedural rule of
necessity should be affirmed.
Same.It is thus seen that a procedural rule of
Congress or of the Supreme Court gives way to
a constitutional right. In the instant case, the
procedural rule of the Court of Industrial
Relations, a creature of Congress, must likewise
yield to the constitutional rights invoked by
herein petitioners even before the institution of
the unfair labor practice charged against them
and in their defense to the said charge. In the
case at bar, enforcement of the basic human
freedoms sheltered no less by the organic law,
is a most compelling reason to deny application
of a CIR rule which impinges on such human
rights.
Same; Civil Procedure; Court may suspend its
own rules.It is an accepted principle that the
Supreme Court has inherent power to "suspend
its own rules or to except a particular case from
its operation, whenever the purposes of justice
requires." Mr. Justice Barredo in his concurring
opinion in Estrada vs. Sto. Domingo reiterated
this principle and added that "Under this
authority, this Court is enabled to cope with all
situations without concerning itself about
procedural niceties that do not square with the
need to do justice..." If we can disregard our
own rules when justice requires it, obedience to
the Constitution renders more imperative the
suspension of a CIR rule that classes with the
human rights sanctioned and shielded with
resolute concern by the specific guarantees
outlined in the organic law.
Same; Same; Suspension of CIR rules authorized
by C.A. 103.The suspension of the application
of Section 15 of the CIR rules with reference to
the case at bar, is also authorized by Section 20
of C.A. 103, the CIR charter, which enjoins the
Court of Industrial Relations to "act according to
justice and equity and substantial merits of the
case, without regard to technicalities or legal
forms."
CASE DIGEST
Facts: Philippine Blooming Employees
Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass
demonstration in front of Malacaang to
express their grievances against the alleged
abuses of the Pasig Police.
After learning about the planned mass
demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc.,
called for a meeting with the leaders of the
PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned
demonstration was confirmed by the union. But
it was stressed out that the demonstration was
not a strike against the company but was in fact
an exercise of the laborers inalienable
constitutional right to freedom of expression,
freedom of speech and freedom for petition for
redress of grievances.
The company asked them to cancel the
demonstration for it would interrupt the normal
course of their business which may result in the
loss of revenue. This was backed up with the
threat of the possibility that the workers would
lose their jobs if they pushed through with the
rally.
A second meeting took place where the
company reiterated their appeal that while the
workers may be allowed to participate, those
from the 1st and regular shifts should not
absent themselves to participate , otherwise,
they would be dismissed. Since it was too late
to cancel the plan, the rally took place and the
officers of the PBMEO were eventually
dismissed for a violation of the No Strike and
No Lockout clause of their Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
The lower court decided in favor of the
company and the officers of the PBMEO were
found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their
motion for reconsideration was subsequently
denied by the Court of Industrial Relations for
being filed two days late.
Issue: Whether or not the workers who joined
the strike violated the CBA.
Held: No. While the Bill of Rights also protects
property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. Because
these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as
well as supremely precious in our society" and
the "threat of sanctions may deter their
exercise almost as potently as the actual
application of sanctions," they "need breathing
space to survive," permitting government
regulation only "with narrow specificity."
Property and property rights can be lost thru
prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil
liberties, the rights of free expression and of
assembly occupy a preferred position as they
are essential to the preservation and vitality of
our civil and political institutions; and such
priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and
the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."
The freedoms of speech and of the press as well
as of peaceful assembly and of petition for
redress of grievances are absolute when
directed against public officials or "when
exercised in relation to our right to choose the
men and women by whom we shall be
governed.

G.R. No. 151019. August 9, 2007.*
DELFIN ESPINOCILLA, JR., JOSEFINA ALCID,
ROSITA PALOMER, HENRY ASEJO, JAIME DIAZ,
MARTIN BALIGUAS, BELEN PEREZ, JOAN
BONCALES, IMELDA GOGOLIN, VICTOR
RAON, LILIA GIL, NERISSA JAYUMA,
SILVESTRE AALA, NIDA URBANO, SUSANA
NERI, GAVINA COLINDO, CONSTANTINO
MURALLO, JULIE GOGOLIN, RICARDO
BENABISE, CORAZON ORCOSE AND NARLITO
GUTIERRES, petitioners, vs. BAGONG TANYAG
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
REMEDIOS BICO, ALFONSO IGNACIO, GLORIA
MISTERIO, SALVACION PORAS, RHOBBY
ACOSTA, ADELA GIRAY, EDMON BANSE,
VIOLETA ALBA, SOFRANIO MANGAMPO,
NAVARRO ABBARIENTOS, ZACARIAS ARZAGA,
RODRIGO PICART, and LIVINO TORINO,
respondents.
Constitutional Law; Due Process; The essence of
due process is the opportunity to be heard;
What the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute absence
thereof and the lack of opportunity to be
heard.The essence of due process is the
opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits
is not the absence of previous notice but the
absolute absence thereof and the lack of
opportunity to be heard. The records of the
case show that petitioners had had more than
sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard
before they were delisted as prospective
beneficiaries.
Same; Same; The due process guarantee cannot HELD:
be invoked when no vested right has been
acquired.At all events, the due process The record shows that the petitioners were
guarantee cannot be invoked when no vested given more than sufficient notice and
opportunity to be heard before they were
right has been acquired. The period during
removed from the list of prospective
which petitioners occupied the lots, no matter
beneficiaries and that even when they were
how long, did not vest them with any right to
delisted, they were given ample time, and a
claim ownership since it is a fundamental
new deadline with which to submit
principle of law that acts of possessory
requirements. Notices were sent as well
character executed by virtue of license or
informing them of the consequences of non-
tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do
compliance.
not start the running of the period of acquisitive
prescription. It bears recalling that BATAHAI
At all events, the due process guarantee cannot
was formed precisely to enable the Bagong
be invoked when no vested right has been
Tanyag settlers, including petitioners, to
acquired. The period during which petitioners
purchase the lots they were occupying.
occupied the lots, no matter how long, did not
vest them with any right to claim ownership
since it is a fundamental principle of law that
CASE DIGEST acts of possessory character executed by virtue
of license or tolerance of the owner, no matter
FACTS: Espinocillo and others were former how long, do not start the running of the period
members of Bagong Tanyag Homeowners of acquisitive prescription. It bears recalling that
Assoc, filed a petition before SC and faults the BATAHAI was formed precisely to enable the
appelate court in not declaring the acts of the Bagong Tanyag settlers, including petitioners, to
Association as constitutional . purchase the lots they were occupying.
Petitioners contend that the property occupied
by them or adjacent to them where they
planted crops or made improvements for some
time were subdivided without their consent,
reassigned without due process of law and their
names were omitted in the list of prospective
beneficiaries.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners were deprived of
their property rights without due process of
law.

No. L-7859. December 22, 1955]
WALTER LUTZ, as Judicial Administrator of the
Intestate Estate of the deceased Antonio
Jayme Ledesma, plaintiff and appellant, vs. J.
ANTONIO ARANETA, as the Collector of
Internal Revenue, defendant and appellee.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; TAXATION; POWER
OF STATE TO LEVY TAX IN AID AND SUPPORT OF
SUGAR INDUSTRY.As the protection and
promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of
public concern, the Legislature may determine
within reasonable bounds what is necessary for
its protection and expedient for its promotion.
Here, the legislative discretion must be allowed
full play, subject only to the test of
reasonableness; and it is not contended that
the means provided in section 6 of
Commonwealth Act No. 567 bear no relation to
the objective pursued or are oppressive in
character. If objective and methods are alike
constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the
state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their
prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be
made the implement of the states police power
(Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. vs. Grosjean, 301 U.S.
412, 81 L. Ed. 1193; U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1,
80 L. Ed. 477; MCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat.
316, 4 L. Ed. 579).
or exemption infringe 110 constitutional
limitation (Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke
Co., 301 U.S. 495, 81 L. Ed. 1245, citing
numerous authorities, at 1251).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental. Teodoro, Sr., J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ernesto J. Gonzaga for appellant.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, First
Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres
and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for appellee.
REYES, J.B. L., J.:
This case was initiated in the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental to test the
legality of the taxes imposed by Commonwealth
Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar
Adjustment Act.
Promulgated in 1940, the law in question opens
(section 1) with a declaration of emergency,
due to the threat to our industry by the
imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar
as provided in the Tydings-McDuffie Act, and
the eventual loss of its preferential position in
the United States market; wherefore, the
national policy was expressed to obtain a
readjustment of the benefits derived
In section 2, Commonwealth Act 567 provides
for an increase of the existing tax on the
manufacture of sugar, on a graduated basis, on
each picul of sugar manuf actured; while
section 3 levies on owners or persons in control
of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane
and ceded to others for a consideration, on
lease or otherwise
a tax equivalent to the difference between the
money value of the rental or consideration
collected and the amount representing 12 per
centum of the assessed value of such land.
XXX
The basic defect in the plaintiffs position is his
assumption that the tax provided for in
Commonwealth Act No. 567 is a pure exercise
of the taxing power. Analysis of the Act, and
particularly of section 6 (heretofore quoted in
full), will show that the tax is levied with a
regulatory purpose, to provide means f or the
rehabilitation and stabilization of the
threatened sugar industry. In other words, the
act is primarily an exercise of the police power.
[Lutz vs. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148(1955)]

2. ID. ; ID. ; ID.; ; POWER OF STATE TO SELECT
SUBJECT OF TAXATION.It is inherent in the
power to tax that a state be free to select the
subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly
held that inequalities which result from a
singling out of one particular class for taxation
from the sugar industry by the component
elements thereofand to stabilize the sugar
industry so as to prepare it for the eventuality
of the loss of its preferential position in the
United States market and the imposition of the
export taxes.
 been repeatedly held that inequalities which
result from a singling out of one particular class
for taxation or exemption infringe no
constitutional limitation.
CASE DIGFEST
The funds raised under the Act should be
Facts: Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise
exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry,
known as Sugar Adjustment Act was
since it is that very enterprise that is being
promulgated in 1940 to stabilize the sugar
protected. It may be that other industries are
industry so as to prepare it for the eventuality
also in need of similar protection; but the
of the loss of its preferential position in the
legislature is not required by the Constitution to
United States market and the imposition of
adhere to a policy of all or none.
export taxes. Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his
capacity as Judicial Administrator of the
Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma,
seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal
Revenue the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the
estate as taxes, under Sec.3 of the Act, alleging
that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being
levied for the aid and support of the sugar
industry exclusively, which in plaintiffs opinion
is not a public purpose for which a tax may be
constitutionally levied. The action has been
dismissed by the Court of First Instance.

Issue: Whether or not the tax imposed is

constitutional.

Held: Yes. The act is primarily an exercise of the

police power. It is shown in the Act that the tax
is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide
means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of
the threatened sugar industry.

It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be

free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has