HURL Cases 1

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

1/27

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007

GOVERNMENT OF HONG ONG SPEC!A" A#M!N!STRAT!VEREG!ON, r$pr$%$&'$( )* '+$ P+ilippi&$ #$pr'-$&' o /%'i$,Petitioner,vs.HON. FE"!ERTO T. O"A"!A, /R. &( /UAN ANTON!O MU4O,Respondents.

D E C I S I N

SAN#OVA"GUT!ERRE, J.:

!or our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule "#of the $%%& Rules of Civil Procedure, as a'ended, see(in) to nullif*the t+o rders of the Re)ional rial Court -RC, Branch /, Manila-presided b* respondent 0ud)e !eli1berto . lalia, 0r. issued inCivil Case No. %%2%#&&3. hese are4 -$ the rder dated Dece'ber56, 566$ allo+in) 0uan Antonio Mu7o8, private respondent, to postbail9 and -5 the rder dated April $6, 5665 den*in) the 'otion tovacate the said rder of Dece'ber 56, 566$ filed b* the:overn'ent of ;on) It too( effect on 0une56, $%%&.

n 0ul* $, $%%&, ;on) in violation of Section % -$ -a of the Prevention of Briber*rdinance, Cap. 56$ of ;on)

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

2/27

n Dece'ber $/, 5666, this Court rendered a Decision )rantin) thepetition of the D0 and sustainin) the validit* of the rder of Arresta)ainst private respondent. he Decision beca'e final ande1ecutor* on April $6, 566$.

Mean+hile, as earl* as Nove'ber 55, $%%%, petitioner ;on) fli)ht ris(.>

n ctober 55, 566$, 0ud)e Bernardo, 0r. inhibited hi'self fro'further hearin) Civil Case No. %%2%#&33. It +as then raffled off toBranch / presided b* respondent =ud)e.

n ctober 36, 566$, private respondent filed a 'otion forreconsideration of the rder den*in) his application for bail. his +as)ranted b* respondent =ud)e in an rder dated Dece'ber 56, 566$allo+in) private respondent to post bail, thus4

In conclusion, this Court +ill not contribute to accused?s furthererosion of civil liberties. he petition for bail is )ranted sub=ect to the

follo+in) conditions4

$. Bail is set at Php,666.66 in cash +ith the condition thataccused hereb* underta(es that he +ill appear and ans+erthe issues raised in these proceedin)s and +ill at all ti'eshold hi'self a'enable to orders and processes of this Court,+ill further appear for =ud)'ent. If accused fails in thisunderta(in), the cash bond +ill be forfeited in favor of the)overn'ent9

5. Accused 'ust surrender his valid passport to this Court9

3. he Depart'ent of 0ustice is )iven i''ediate notice anddiscretion of filin) its o+n 'otion for hold departure orderbefore this Court even in e1tradition proceedin)9 and

@. Accused is reuired to report to the )overn'ent

prosecutors handlin) this case or if the* so desire to thenearest office, at an* ti'e and da* of the +ee(9 and if the*further desire, 'anifest before this Court to reuire that allthe assets of accused, real and personal, be filed +ith thisCourt soonest, +ith the condition that if the accused fleesfro' his underta(in), said assets be forfeited in favor of the)overn'ent and that the correspondin) lienannotation benoted therein accordin)l*.

S RDERED.

n Dece'ber 5$, 566$, petitioner filed an ur)ent 'otion to vacate

the above rder, but it +as denied b* respondent =ud)e in his rderdated April $6, 5665.

;ence, the instant petition. Petitioner alle)ed that the trial courtco''itted )rave abuse of discretion a'ountin) to lac( or e1cess of

=urisdiction in ad'ittin) private respondent to bail9 that there isnothin) in the Constitution or statutor* la+ providin) that a potentiale1traditee has a ri)ht to bail, the ri)ht bein) li'ited solel* to cri'inalproceedin)s.

In his co''ent on the petition, private respondent 'aintained that

the ri)ht to bail )uaranteed under the Bill of Ri)hts e1tends to aprospective e1traditee9 and that e1tradition is a harsh processresultin) in a prolon)ed deprivation of one?s libert*.

Section $3, Article III of the Constitution provides that the ri)ht to bailshall not be i'paired, thus4

Sec. $3. All persons, e1cept those char)ed +ith offenses punishableb* reclusion perpetua+hen evidence of )uilt is stron), shall, beforeconviction, be bailable b* sufficient sureties, or be released onreco)ni8ance as 'a* be provided b* la+. he ri)ht to bail shall not

2

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

3/27

be i'paired even +hen the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpusissuspended. E1cessive bail shall not be reuired.

0urisprudence on e1tradition is but in its infanc* in this =urisdiction.Nonetheless, this is not the first ti'e that this Court has an occasion

to resolve the uestion of +hether a prospective e1traditee 'a* be)ranted bail.

In Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G.Purganan, Presiding Judge, RT of !anila, "ranch #$, and !ar% ".Jimene&, a.%.a. !ario "atacan respo,$this Court, spea(in) throu)hthen Associate 0ustice Arte'io . Pan)aniban, later Chief 0ustice,held that the constitutional provision on bail does not appl* toe1tradition proceedin)s. It is >available onl* in cri'inal proceedin)s,>thus4

1 1 1. As su))ested b* the use of the +ord >conviction,> the

constitutional provision on bail uoted above, as +ell as Section @,Rule $$@ of the Rules of Court, applies onl* +hen a person has beenarrested and detained for violation of Philippine cri'inal la+s. It doesnot appl* to e1tradition proceedin)s because e1tradition courts donot render =ud)'ents of conviction or acuittal.

Moreover, the constitutional ri)ht to bail >flo+s fro' the presu'ptionof innocence in favor of ever* accused +ho should not be sub=ectedto the loss of freedo' as thereafter he +ould be entitled to acuittal,unless his )uilt be proved be*ond reasonable doubt> -'e la amarav. (nage, @$ SCRA $, ", Septe'ber $&, $%&$, per !ernando, J., laterJ. It follo+s that the constitutional provision on bail +ill not appl* toa case li(e e1tradition, +here the presu'ption of innocence is not atissue.

he provision in the Constitution statin) that the >ri)ht to bail shallnot be i'paired even +hen the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpusis suspended> does not detract fro' the rule that the constitutionalri)ht to bail is available onl* in cri'inal proceedin)s. It 'ust be notedthat the suspension of the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpus findsapplication >onl* to persons =udiciall* char)ed for rebellion oroffenses inherent in or directl* connected +ith invasion> -Sec. $/,

Art. III, Constitution. ;ence, the second sentence in theconstitutional provision on bail 'erel* e'phasi8es the ri)ht to bail incri'inal proceedin)s for the afore'entioned offenses. It cannot beta(en to 'ean that the ri)ht is available even in e1traditionproceedin)s that are not cri'inal in nature.

At first )lance, the above rulin) applies suarel* to privaterespondent?s case. ;o+ever, this Court cannot i)nore the follo+in)trends in international la+4 -$ the )ro+in) i'portance of theindividual person in public international la+ +ho, in the 56th centur*,has )raduall* attained )lobal reco)nition9 -5 the hi)her value no+bein) )iven to hu'an ri)hts in the international sphere9 -3 thecorrespondin) dut* of countries to observe these universal hu'anri)hts in fulfillin) their treat* obli)ations9 and -@ the dut* of this Courtto balance the ri)hts of the individual under our funda'ental la+, onone hand, and the la+ on e1tradition, on the other.

T+$ -o($r& 'r$&( i& p)li i&'$r&'io&l l i% '+$ pri-*pl$( o& '+$ or'+ o '+$ i&(i8i(l p$r%o& &( '+$ %&'i'* o+-& ri+'%. Slo+l*, the reco)nition that the individual person 'a*properl* be a sub=ect of international la+ is no+ ta(in) root. hevulnerable doctrine that the sub=ects of international la+ are li'itedonl* to states +as dra'aticall* eroded to+ards the second half of thepast centur*. !or one, the Nure'ber) and o(*o trials after orldar II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individualdefendants for acts characteri8ed as violations of the la+s of +ar,cri'es a)ainst peace, and cri'es a)ainst hu'anit*. Recentl*, underthe Nure'ber) principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for+ar cri'es and cri'es a)ainst hu'anit* co''itted in the for'er

u)oslavia. hese si)nificant events sho+ that the individual personis no+ a valid sub=ect of international la+.

n a 'ore positive note, also after orld ar II, both internationalor)ani8ations and states )ave reco)nition and i'portance to hu'anri)hts. hus, on Dece'ber $6, $%@/, the Fnited Nations :eneral

Asse'bl* adopted the Fniversal Declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts in+hich the ri)ht to life, libert* and all the other funda'ental ri)hts ofever* person +ere proclai'ed. hile not a treat*, '+$ pri&ipl$%o&'i&$( i& '+$ %i( #$lr'io& r$ &o r$o&i:$( %%'o-ril* )i&(i& po& '+$ -$-)$r% o '+$ i&'$r&'io&l

3

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

4/27

o--&i'*. hus, in !e)off v. 'irector of Prisons,5'+i% Cor', i&r&'i& )il 'o pro%p$'i8$ ($por'$$, +$l( '+' &($r '+$Co&%'i''io&,3the principles set forth in that Declaration are part ofthe la+ of the land. In $%"", the FN :eneral Asse'bl* also adoptedthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Ri)hts +hich the

Philippines si)ned and ratified. !unda'ental a'on) the ri)htsenshrined therein are the ri)hts of ever* person to life, libert*, anddue process.

he Philippines, alon) +ith the other 'e'bers of the fa'il* ofnations, co''itted to uphold the funda'ental hu'an ri)hts as +ellas value the +orth and di)nit* of ever* person. his co''it'ent isenshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution +hich provides4>he State values the di)nit* of ever* hu'an person and )uaranteesfull respect for hu'an ri)hts.> he Philippines, therefore, has theresponsibilit* of protectin) and pro'otin) the ri)ht of ever* person tolibert* and due process, ensurin) that those detained or arrested can

participate in the proceedin)s before a court, to enable it to decide+ithout dela* on the le)alit* of the detention and order their release if

=ustified. In other +ords, the Philippine authorities are underobli)ation to 'a(e available to ever* person under detention suchre'edies +hich safe)uard their funda'ental ri)ht to libert*. hesere'edies include the ri)ht to be ad'itted to bail. hile this Court inPurgananli'ited the e1ercise of the ri)ht to bail to cri'inalproceedin)s, ho+ever, in li)ht of the various international treaties)ivin) reco)nition and protection to hu'an ri)hts, particularl* theri)ht to life and libert*, a ree1a'ination of this Court?s rulin) inPurgananis in order.

*irst, +e note that the e1ercise of the State?s po+er todeprive an individual of his libert* is not necessaril* li'ited tocri'inal proceedin)s. Respondents in ad'inistrativeproceedin)s, such as deportation and uarantine,@haveli(e+ise been detained.

Second, to li'it bail to cri'inal proceedin)s +ould be toclose our e*es to our =urisprudential histor*. Philippine

=urisprudence has not li'ited the e1ercise of the ri)ht to bailto cri'inal proceedin)s onl*. his Court has ad'itted to bailpersons +ho are not involved in cri'inal proceedin)s. In

fact, bail has been allo+ed in this =urisdiction to persons indetention durin) the pendenc* of ad'inistrativeproceedin)s, ta(in) into co)ni8ance the obli)ation of thePhilippines under international conventions to uphold hu'anri)hts.

he $%6% case of US v. Go+Sioco#is illustrative. In this case, aChinese facin) deportation for failure to secure the necessar*certificate of re)istration +as )ranted bail pendin) his appeal. Afternotin) that the prospective deportee had co''itted no cri'e, theCourt opined that >o refuse hi' bail is to treat hi' as a person +hohas co''itted the 'ost serious cri'e (no+n to la+9> and that +hiledeportation is not a cri'inal proceedin), so'e of the 'achiner* used>is the 'achiner* of cri'inal la+.> hus, the provisions relatin) to bail+as applied to deportation proceedin)s.

In !e)off v. 'irector of Prisons"and hirs%off v. ommission of

mmigration,&this Court ruled that forei)n nationals a)ainst +ho' nofor'al cri'inal char)es have been filed 'a* be released on bailpendin) the finalit* of an order of deportation. As previousl* stated,the Court in !e)offrelied upon the Fniversal declaration of ;u'anRi)hts in sustainin) the detainee?s ri)ht to bail.

If bail can be )ranted in deportation cases, +e see no =ustification+h* it should not also be allo+ed in e1tradition cases. Gi(e+ise,considerin) that the Fniversal Declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts appliesto deportation cases, there is no reason +h* it cannot be invo(ed ine1tradition cases. After all, both are ad'inistrative proceedin)s+here the innocence or )uilt of the person detained is not in issue.

Clearl*, the ri)ht of a prospective e1traditee to appl* for bail in this=urisdiction 'ust be vie+ed in the li)ht of the various treat*obli)ations of the Philippines concernin) respect for the pro'otionand protection of hu'an ri)hts. Fnder these treaties, thepresu'ption lies in favor of hu'an libert*. hus, the Philippinesshould see to it that the ri)ht to libert* of ever* individual is noti'paired.

4

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

5/27

Section 5-a of Presidential Decree -P.D. No. $6"% -he PhilippineE1tradition Ga+ defines >e1tradition> as >the re'oval of an accusedfro' the Philippines +ith the ob=ect of placin) hi' at the disposal offorei)n authorities to enable the reuestin) state or )overn'ent tohold hi' in connection +ith an* cri'inal investi)ation directed

a)ainst hi' or the e1ecution of a penalt* i'posed on hi' under thepenal or cri'inal la+ of the reuestin) state or )overn'ent.>

E1tradition has thus been characteri8ed as the ri)ht of a forei)npo+er, created b* treat*, to de'and the surrender of one accused orconvicted of a cri'e +ithin its territorial =urisdiction, and thecorrelative dut* of the other state to surrender hi' to the de'andin)state./It is not a cri'inal proceedin).%Even if the potential e1traditeeis a cri'inal, an e1tradition proceedin) is not b* its nature cri'inal,for it is not punish'ent for a cri'e, even thou)h such punish'ent'a* follo+ e1tradition.$6It is sui generis,tracin) its e1istence +holl*to treat* obli)ations bet+een different nations.$$!' i% &o' 'ril 'o

($'$r-i&$ '+$ il' or i&&o$&$ o '+$ po'$&'il $;'r(i'$$.$5

Nor is it a full2blo+n civil action, but one that is 'erel* ad'inistrativei& +r'$r.$3Its ob=ect is to prevent the escape of a personaccused or convicted of a cri'e and to secure his return to the statefro' +hich he fled, for the purpose of trial or punish'ent.$@

But +hile e1tradition is not a cri'inal proceedin), it is characteri8edb* the follo+in)4 -a it entails a deprivation of libert* on the part of thepotential e1traditee and -b '+$ -$&% $-plo*$( 'o ''i& '+$prpo%$ o $;'r(i'io& i% l%o i--$(i'$ rr$%' &(

'$-porr* ($'$&'io& o '+$ %$(> if such >+ill best serve theinterest of =ustice.> e further note that Section 56 allo+s thereuestin) state >in case of ur)enc*> to as( for the >pro8i%io&lrr$%' o '+$ %$(, p$&(i& r$$ip' o '+$ r$=$%' or$;'r(i'io&>> and that release fro' provisional arrest >shall notpre=udice re2arrest and e1tradition of the accused if a reuest fore1tradition is received subseuentl*.>

bviousl*, an e1tradition proceedin), +hile ostensibl* ad'inistrative,bears all ear'ar(s of a cri'inal process. A po'$&'il $;'r(i'$$-* )$ %)?$'$( 'o rr$%', 'o prolo&$( r$%'ri&' o li)$r'*,

&( or$( 'o 'r&%$r 'o '+$ ($-&(i& %''$ olloi& '+$pro$$(i&%. >e'porar* detention> 'a* be a necessar* step in theprocess of e1tradition, but the len)th of ti'e of the detention shouldbe reasonable.

Records sho+ that private respondent +as arrested on Septe'ber53, $%%%, and re'ained incarcerated until Dece'ber 56, 566$, +henthe trial court ordered his ad'ission to bail. !& o'+$r or(%, +$ +()$$& ($'i&$( or o8$r 'o @2 *$r% i'+o' +8i& )$$&o&8i'$( o &* ri-$.B* an* standard, such an e1tended periodof detention is a serious deprivation of his funda'ental ri)ht tolibert*. In fact, it +as this prolon)ed deprivation of libert* +hichpro'pted the e1tradition court to )rant hi' bail.

hile our e1tradition la+ does not provide for the )rant of bail to ane1traditee, ho+ever, there is no provision prohibitin) hi' or her fro'filin) a 'otion for bail, a ri)ht to due process under the Constitution.

he applicable standard of due process, ho+ever, should not be thesa'e as that in cri'inal proceedin)s. In the latter, the standard ofdue process is pre'ised on the presu'ption of innocence of theaccused. As Purganancorrectl* points out, it is fro' this 'a=orpre'ise that the ancillar* presu'ption in favor of ad'ittin) to bailarises. Bearin) in 'ind the purpose of e1tradition proceedin)s, thepre'ise behind the issuance of the arrest +arrant and the>te'porar* detention> is the possibilit* of fli)ht of the potentiale1traditee. his is based on the assu'ption that such e1traditee is afu)itive fro' =ustice.$#:iven the fore)oin), the prospective e1traditeethus bears the onus probandiof sho+in) that he or she is not a fli)ht

ris( and should be )ranted bail.

he ti'e2honored principle ofpacta sunt servanda de'ands that thePhilippines honor its obli)ations under the E1tradition reat* itentered into +ith the ;on)

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

6/27

)uaranteed, not onl* b* our Constitution, but also b* internationalconventions, to +hich the Philippines is a part*. e should not,therefore, deprive an e1traditee of his ri)ht to appl* for bail, providedthat a certain standard for the )rant is satisfactoril* 'et.

An e1tradition proceedin) bein) sui generis, the standard of proofreuired in )rantin) or den*in) bail can neither be the proof be*ondreasonable doubt in cri'inal cases nor the standard of proof ofpreponderance of evidence in civil cases. hile ad'inistrative incharacter, the standard of substantial evidence used inad'inistrative cases cannot li(e+ise appl* )iven the ob=ect ofe1tradition la+ +hich is to prevent the prospective e1traditee fro'fleein) our =urisdiction. In his Separate pinion in Purganan, then

Associate 0ustice, no+ Chief 0ustice Re*nato S. Puno, proposedthat a ne+ standard +hich he ter'ed >l$r &( o&8i&i&$8i($&$> %+ol( )$ %$( i& r&'i& )il i& $;'r(i'io& %$%.

Accordin) to hi', this standard should be lo+er than proof be*ond

reasonable doubt but hi)her than preponderance of evidence. hepotential e1traditee 'ust prove b* >clear and convincin) evidence>that he is not a fli)ht ris( and +ill abide +ith all the orders andprocesses of the e1tradition court.

In this case, there is no sho+in) that private respondent presentedevidence to sho+ that he is not a li+' ri%B. Conseuentl*, this caseshould be re'anded to the trial court to deter'ine +hether privaterespondent 'a* be )ranted bail on the basis of >clear and convincin)evidence.>

HEREFORE, +e #!SM!SSthe petition. his case is REMAN#E#

to the trial court to deter'ine +hether private respondent is entitledto bail on the basis of >clear and convincin) evidence.> If not, the trialcourt should order the cancellation of his bail bond and hisi''ediate detention9 and thereafter, conduct the e1traditionproceedin)s +ith dispatch.

6

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

7/27

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. "2662 Mr+ 26, 19D9

SH!GENOR! URO#A,petitioner,vs.M?or G$&$rl RAFAE" /A"AN#ON!, ri(i$r G$&$rlCA"!TO #UUE, Colo&$l MARGAR!TO TORA"A, Colo&$l!RENEO UENCONSE/O, Colo&$l PE#RO TAUENA, M?orFE#ER!CO ARANAS, ME"V!""E S. HUSSE &( ROERT PORT,respondents.

Pedro Serran, Jose G. -u%ban, and -iberato ". inco for petitioner.*red Rui& astro *ederico Arenas !ariano engco, Jr., Ricardo A.

Arcilla and S. !elville Husse/ for respondents.

MORAN, C.J.

Shi)enori to dischar)e his duties as such

co''and, per'ittin) the' to co''it brutal atrocities and other hi)hcri'es a)ainst nonco'batant civilians and prisoners of the I'perial0apanese !orces in violation of the la+s and custo's of +ar> Hco'es before this Court see(in) to establish the ille)alit* ofE1ecutive rder No. "/ of the President of the Philippines4 to en=oinand prohibit respondents Melville S. ;usse* and Robert Port fro'participatin) in the prosecution of petitioners case before the Militar*Co''ission and to per'anentl* prohibit respondents fro'proceedin) +ith the case of petitioners.

In support of his case petitioner tenders the follo+in) principalar)u'ents.

*irst. H >hat E1ecutive rder No. "/ is ille)al on the )round that itviolates not onl* the provision of our constitutional la+ but also our

local la+s to sa* nothin) of the fact -that the Philippines is not asi)nator* nor an adherent to the ;a)ue Convention on Rules andRe)ulations coverin) Gand arfare and therefore petitioners ischar)ed of cri'es not based on la+, national and international.>;ence petitioner ar)ues H >hat in vie+ off the fact that thisco''ission has been e'panelled b* virtue of an unconstitutionalla+ an ille)al order this co''ission is +ithout =urisdiction to tr*herein petitioner.>

Second. H hat the participation in the prosecution of the casea)ainst petitioner before the Co''ission in behalf of the FnitedState of A'erica of attorne*s Melville ;usse* and Robert Port +ho

are not attorne*s authori8ed b* the Supre'e Court to practice la+ inthe Philippines is a di'inution of our personalit* as an independentstate and their appoint'ent as prosecutor are a violation of ourConstitution for the reason that the* are not ualified to practice la+in the Philippines.

Third. H hat Attorne*s ;usse* and Port have no personalit* asprosecution the Fnited State not bein) a part* in interest in the case.

E1ecutive rder No. "/, establishin) a National ar Cri'es fficeprescribin) rule and re)ulation )overnin) the trial of accused +arcri'inals, +as issued b* the President of the Philippines on the 5%th

da*s of 0ul*, $%@& his Court holds that this order is valid andconstitutional. Article 5 of our Constitution provides in its section 3,that H

he Philippines renounces +ar as an instru'ent of nationalpolic* and adopts the )enerall* accepted principles ofinternational la+ as part of the of the nation.

In accordance +ith the )enerall* accepted principle of internationalla+ of the present da* includin) the ;a)ue Convention the :eneva

7

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

8/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

9/27

Petitioner challen)es the participation of t+o A'erican attorne*sna'el* Melville S. ;usse* and Robert Port in the prosecution of hiscase on the )round that said attorne*s are not ualified to practicela+ in Philippines in accordance +ith our Rules of court and theappoint'ent of said attorne*s as prosecutors is violative of our

national soverei)nt*.

In the first place respondent Militar* Co''ission is a special 'ilitar*tribunal )overned b* a special la+ and not b* the Rules of court+hich )overn ordinar* civil court. It has alread* been sho+n thatE1ecutive rder No. "/ +hich provides for the or)ani8ation of such'ilitar* co''ission is a valid and constitutional la+. here is nothin)in said e1ecutive order +hich reuires that counsel appearin) beforesaid co''ission 'ust be attorne*s ualified to practice la+ in thePhilippines in accordance +ith the Rules of Court. In facts it isco''on in 'ilitar* tribunals that counsel for the parties are usuall*'ilitar* personnel +ho are neither attorne*s nor even possessed of

le)al trainin).

Secondl* the appoint'ent of the t+o A'erican attorne*s is notviolative of our nation soverei)nt*. It is onl* fair and proper thatFnited States, +hich has sub'itted the vindication of cri'es a)ainsther )overn'ent and her people to a tribunal of our nation should beallo+ed representation in the trial of those ver* cri'es. If there hasbeen an* relinuish'ent of soverei)nt* it has not been b* our)overn'ent but b* the Fnited State :overn'ent +hich has *ieldedto us the trial and punish'ent of her ene'ies. he least that +ecould do in the spirit of co'it* is to allo+ the' representation in saidtrials.

Alle)in) that the Fnited State is not a part* in interest in the casepetitioner challen)es the personalit* of attorne*s ;usse* and Port asprosecutors. It is of co''on (no+led)e that the Fnited State and itspeople have been euall* if not 'ore )reatl* a))rieved b* the cri'es+ith +hich petitioner stands char)ed before the Militar* Co''ission.It can be considered a privile)e for our Republic that a leader nationshould sub'it the vindication of the honor of its citi8ens and its)overn'ent to a 'ilitar* tribunal of our countr*.

he Militar* Co''ission havin) been convened b* virtue of a validla+ +ith =urisdiction over the cri'es char)ed +hich fall under theprovisions of E1ecutive rder No. "/, and havin) said petitioner in itscustod*, this Court +ill not interfere +ith the due process of suchMilitar* co''ission.

!or all the fore)oin) the petition is denied +ith costs de oficio.

9

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

10/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

11/27

sho+ ho+ lon) he has been under confine'ent since the last ti'ehe +as apprehended. Neither does he indicate ne)lectedopportunities to send hi' abroad. And unless it is sho+n that thedeportee is bein) indefinitel* i'prisoned under the pretense ofa+aitin) a chance for deportation3or unless the :overn'ent ad'its

that itcan not deport hi'

@

or unless the detainee is bein) held for toolon) a period our courts +ill not interfere.

>In the Fnited States there +ere at least t+o instances in +hichcourts fi1ed a ti'e li'it +ithin +hich the i'prisoned aliens should bedeported#other+ise their release +ould be ordered b* +rit of habeascorpus. Nevertheless, supposin) such precedents appl* in this

=urisdiction, still +e have no sufficient data fairl* to fi1 a definitedeadline.>

he difference bet+een this and the Borovs(* case lies in the factthat the record sho+s this petitioner has been detained since March,

$%@/. ;o+ever, considerin) that in the Fnited States -+heretransportation facilities are 'uch )reater and diplo'aticarran)e'ents are easier to 'a(e a dela* of t+ent* 'onths incarr*in) out an order of deportation has not been held sufficient to

=ustif* the issuance of the +rit of habeas corpus,"this petition 'ustbe, and it is hereb* denied. So ordered.

11

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

12/27

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. "31195 /&$ 5, 1973

PH!"!PP!NE "OOM!NG M!""S EMP"OMENT ORGAN!AT!ON,N!CANOR TO"ENT!NO, F"ORENC!O, PA#R!GANO RUF!NO,ROAS MAR!ANO #E "EON, ASENC!ON PAC!ENTE, ON!FAC!OVACUNA, EN/AM!N PAGCU &( RO#U"FO MUNSO#,petitioners,vs.PH!"!PP!NE "OOM!NG M!""S CO., !NC. &( COURT OF!N#USTR!A" RE"AT!ONS, respondents.

-.S. 2sorio 3 P.". astillo and J.. (spinas 3 Associates forpetitioners.

'emetrio ". Salem 3 Associates for private respondent.

MAAS!AR, J.:

he petitioner Philippine Bloo'in) Mills E'plo*ees r)ani8ation-hereinafter referred to as PBME is a le)iti'ate labor unionco'posed of the e'plo*ees of the respondent Philippine Bloo'in)Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor olentino, !lorencioPadri)ano, Rufino Ro1as, Mariano de Geon, Asencion Paciente,Bonifacio acuna, Ben=a'in Pa)cu and Rodulfo Munsod are officersand 'e'bers of the petitioner Fnion.

Petitioners clai' that on March $, $%"%, the* decided to sta)e a'ass de'onstration at Malaca7an) on March @, $%"%, in protest

a)ainst alle)ed abuses of the Pasi) police, to be participated in b*the +or(ers in the first shift -fro' " A.M. to 5 P.M. as +ell as those inthe re)ular second and third shifts -fro' & A.M. to @ P.M. and fro' /

A.M. to # P.M., respectivel*9 and that the* infor'ed the respondentCo'pan* of their proposed de'onstration.

he uestioned order dated Septe'ber $#, $%"%, of Associate 0ud)e0oauin M. Salvador of the respondent Court reproduced thefollo+in) stipulation of facts of the parties H parties H

3. hat on March 5, $%"% co'plainant co'pan*learned of the pro=ected 'ass de'onstration atMalaca7an) in protest a)ainst alle)ed abuses of thePasi) Police Depart'ent to be participated b* thefirst shift -"466 AM25466 PM +or(ers as +ell asthose +or(in) in the re)ular shifts -&466 A.M. to @466PM and /466 AM to #466 PM in the 'ornin) of

March @, $%"%9

@. hat a 'eetin) +as called b* the Co'pan* onMarch 3, $%"% at about $$466 A.M. at the Co'pan*scanteen, and those present +ere4 for the Co'pan*4-$ Mr. Arthur G. An) -5 Att*. S. de Geon, 0r., -3 andall depart'ent and section heads. !or the PBME-$ !lorencio Padri)ano, -5 Rufino Ro1as, -3Mariano de Geon, -@ Asencion Paciente, -#Bonifacio acuna and -" Ben=a'in Pa)cu.

#. hat the Co'pan* as(ed the union panel to

confir' or den* said pro=ected 'ass de'onstrationat Malaca7an) on March @, $%"%. PBME thruBen=a'in Pa)cu +ho acted as spo(es'an of theunion panel, confir'ed the planned de'onstrationand stated that the de'onstration or rall* cannot becancelled because it has alread* been a)reed uponin the 'eetin). Pa)cu e1plained further that thede'onstration has nothin) to do +ith the Co'pan*because the union has no uarrel or dispute +ithMana)e'ent9

12

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

13/27

". hat Mana)e'ent, thru Att*. C.S. de Geon,Co'pan* personnel 'ana)er, infor'ed PBME thatthe de'onstration is an inalienable ri)ht of the union)uaranteed b* the Constitution but e'phasi8ed,ho+ever, that an* de'onstration for that 'atter

should not undul* pre=udice the nor'al operation ofthe Co'pan*. !or +hich reason, the Co'pan*, thruAtt*. C.S. de Geon +arned the PBMErepresentatives that +or(ers +ho belon) to the firstand re)ular shifts, +ho +ithout previous leave ofabsence approved b* the Co'pan*, particularl* , theofficers present +ho are the or)ani8ers of thede'onstration, +ho shall fail to report for +or( thefollo+in) 'ornin) -March @, $%"% shall bedis'issed, because such failure is a violation of thee1istin) CBA and, therefore, +ould be a'ountin) toan ille)al stri(e9

&. hat at about #466 P.M. on March 3, $%"%,another 'eetin) +as convo(ed Co'pan*represented b* Att*. C.S. de Geon, 0r. he Fnionpanel +as co'posed of4 Nicanor olentino, RodolfoMunsod, Ben=a'in Pa)cu and !lorencio Padri)ano.In this afternoon 'eetin) of March 3, $%"%,Co'pan* reiterated and appealed to the PBMErepresentatives that +hile all +or(ers 'a* =oin theMalaca7an) de'onstration, the +or(ers for the firstand re)ular shift of March @, $%"% should bee1cused fro' =oinin) the de'onstration and should

report for +or(9 and thus utili8e the +or(ers in the5nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate theprovisions of the CBA, particularl* Article KKI4 NGC -Anne1 >A>, pp. $%256, rec.. he char)e+as acco'panied b* the =oint affidavit of Arthur G. An) and Cesareode Geon, 0r. -Anne1 >B>, pp. 5$25@, rec.. hereafter, a correspondin)co'plaint +as filed, dated April $/, $%"%, b* Actin) Chief Prosecutor

Antonio . irona and Actin) Prosecutor Ginda P. Ila)an -Anne1 >C>,pp. 5#236, rec.

In their ans+er, dated Ma* %, $%"%, herein petitioners clai' that the*did not violate the e1istin) CBA because the* )ave the respondentCo'pan* prior notice of the 'ass de'onstration on March @, $%"%9

that the said 'ass de'onstration +as a valid e1ercise of theirconstitutional freedo' of speech a)ainst the alle)ed abuses of so'ePasi) police'en9 and that their 'ass de'onstration +as not adeclaration of stri(e because it +as not directed a)ainst therespondent fir' -Anne1 >D>, pp. 3$23@, rec.

After considerin) the afore'entioned stipulation of facts sub'ittedb* the parties, 0ud)e 0oauin M. Salvador, in an order datedSepte'ber $#, $%"%, found herein petitioner PBME )uilt* ofbar)ainin) in bad faith and herein petitioners !lorencio Padri)ano,Rufino Ro1as, Mariano de Geon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio

13

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

14/27

acuna, Ben=a'in Pa)cu, Nicanor olentino and Rodulfo Munsod asdirectl* responsible for perpetratin) the said unfair labor practice and+ere, as a conseuence, considered to have lost their status ase'plo*ees of the respondent Co'pan* -Anne1 >!>, pp. @52#", rec.

;erein petitioners clai' that the* received on Septe'ber 53, $%"%,the aforesaid order -p. $$, rec.9 and that the* filed on Septe'ber 5%,$%"%, because Septe'ber 5/, $%"% fell on Sunda* -p. #%, rec., a'otion for reconsideration of said order dated Septe'ber $#, $%"%,on the )round that it is contrar* to la+ and the evidence, as +ell asas(ed for ten -$6 da*s +ithin +hich to file their ar)u'ents pursuantto Sections $#, $" and $& of the Rules of the CIR, as a'ended-Anne1 >:>, pp. #&2"6, rec.

In its opposition dated ctober &, $%"%, filed on ctober $$, $%"% -p."3, rec., respondent Co'pan* averred that herein petitionersreceived on Septe'ber 55, $%"%, the order dated Septe'ber $&

-should be Septe'ber $#, $%"%9 that under Section $# of thea'ended Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, hereinpetitioners had five -# da*s fro' Septe'ber 55, $%"% or untilSepte'ber 5&, $%"%, +ithin +hich to f ile their 'otion forreconsideration9 and that because their 'otion for reconsideration+as t+o -5 da*s late, it should be accordin)l* dis'issed, invo(in)"ien vs. astillo,1+hich held a'on) others, that a 'otion fore1tension of the five2da* period for the filin) of a 'otion forreconsideration should be filed before the said f ive2da* periodelapses -Anne1 >M>, pp. "$2"@, rec..

Subseuentl*, herein petitioners filed on ctober $@, $%"% their

+ritten ar)u'ents dated ctober $$, $%"%, in support of their 'otionfor reconsideration -Anne1 >I>, pp. "#2&3, rec..

In a resolution dated ctober %, $%"%, the respondent en bancdis'issed the 'otion for reconsideration of herein petitioners forbein)pro forma as it +as filed be*ond the re)le'entar* periodprescribed b* its Rules -Anne1 >0>, pp. &@2, rec., +hich hereinpetitioners received on ctober 5/, $%" -pp. $5 L &", rec..

At the botto' of the notice of the order dated ctober %, $%"%, +hich+as released on ctober 5@, $%"% and addressed to the counsels ofthe parties -pp. &", rec., appear the reuire'ents of Sections $#,$" and $&, as a'ended, of the Rules of the Court of IndustrialRelations, that a 'otion for reconsideration shall be f iled +ithin five-# da*s fro' receipt of its decision or order and that an appeal fro'the decision, resolution or order of the C.I.R., sittin) en banc, shallbe perfected +ithin ten -$6 da*s fro' receipt thereof -p. &", rec..

n ctober 3$, $%"%, herein petitioners filed +ith the respondentcourt a petition for relief fro' the order dated ctober %, $%"%, on the)round that their failure to file their 'otion for reconsideration on ti'e+as due to e1cusable ne)li)ence and honest 'ista(e co''itted b*the president of the petitioner Fnion and of the office cler( of theircounsel, attachin) thereto the affidavits of the said president andcler( -Anne1es >, > and >, rec..

ithout +aitin) for an* resolution on their petition for relief fro' theorder dated ctober %, $%"%, herein petitioners filed on Nove'ber 3,$%"%, +ith the Supre'e Court, a notice of appeal -Anne1 >G>, pp. //2/%, rec..

here is need of briefl* restatin) basic concepts and principles +hichunderlie the issues posed b* the case at bar.

-$ In a de'ocrac*, the preservation and enhance'ent of the di)nit*and +orth of the hu'an personalit* is the central core as +ell as thecardinal article of faith of our civili8ation. he inviolable character of'an as an individual 'ust be >protected to the lar)est possiblee1tent in his thou)hts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person.>2

-5 he Bill of Ri)hts is desi)ned to preserve the ideals of libert*,eualit* and securit* >a)ainst the assaults of opportunis', thee1pedienc* of the passin) hour, the erosion of s'all encroach'ents,and the scorn and derision of those +ho have no patience +ith)eneral principles.>3

14

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

15/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

16/27

he respondent Court of Industrial Relations, after opinin) that the'ass de'onstration +as not a declaration of stri(e, concluded thatb* their >concerted act and the occurrence te'porar* stoppa)e of+or(,> herein petitioners are )uilt* bar)ainin) in bad faith and henceviolated the collective bar)ainin) a)ree'ent +ith private respondentPhilippine Bloo'in) Mills Co., inc.. Set a)ainst and tested b*fore)oin) principles )overnin) a de'ocratic societ*, such conclusioncannot be sustained. he de'onstration held petitioners on March @,$%"% before Malaca7an) +as a)ainst alle)ed abuses of so'e Pasi)police'en, not a)ainst their e'plo*er, herein private respondentfir', said de'onstrate +as purel* and co'pletel* an e1ercise oftheir freedo' e1pression in )eneral and of their ri)ht of asse'bl*and petition for redress of )rievances in particular before appropriate)overn'ental a)enc*, the Chief E1ecutive, a)ain the police officersof the 'unicipalit* of Pasi). he* e1ercise their civil and politicalri)hts for their 'utual aid protection fro' +hat the* believe +erepolice e1cesses. As 'atter of fact, it +as the dut* of herein privaterespondent fir' to protect herein petitioner Fnion and its 'e'bersfro the harass'ent of local police officers. It +as to the interestherein private respondent fir' to rall* to the defense of, and ta(e upthe cud)els for, its e'plo*ees, so that the* can report to +or( freefro' harass'ent, ve1ation or peril and as conseuence perfor''ore efficientl* their respective tas(s enhance its productivit* as +ellas profits. ;erein respondent e'plo*er did not even offer tointercede for its e'plo*ees +ith the local police. as it securin)peace for itself at the e1penses of its +or(ers as it alsointi'idated b* the local police or did it encoura)e the local police toterrori8e or ve1 its +or(ers Its failure to defend its o+n e'plo*eesall the 'ore +ea(ened the position of its laborers the alle)edoppressive police +ho 'i)ht have been all the 'ore e'boldened

thereb* sub=ect its lo+l* e'plo*ees to further indi)nities.

In see(in) sanctuar* behind their freedo' of e1pression +ell as theirri)ht of asse'bl* and of petition a)ainst alle)ed persecution of localofficialdo', the e'plo*ees and laborers of herein private respondentfir' +ere fi)htin) for their ver* survival, utili8in) onl* the +eaponsafforded the' b* the Constitution H the untra''elled en=o*'ent oftheir basic hu'an ri)hts. he pretension of their e'plo*er that it+ould suffer loss or da'a)e b* reason of the absence of itse'plo*ees fro' " ocloc( in the 'ornin) to 5 ocloc( in the

afternoon, is a plea for the preservation 'erel* of their propert*ri)hts. Such apprehended loss or da'a)e +ould not spell thedifference bet+een the life and death of the f ir' or its o+ners or its'ana)e'ent. he e'plo*ees pathetic situation +as a star( realit*H abused, harass'ent and persecuted as the* believed the* +ereb* the peace officers of the 'unicipalit*. As above inti'ated, thecondition in +hich the e'plo*ees found the'selves vis+a+vis thelocal police of Pasi), +as a 'atter that vitall* affected their ri)ht toindividual e1istence as +ell as that of their fa'ilies. Material loss canbe repaired or adeuatel* co'pensated. he debase'ent of thehu'an bein) bro(en in 'orale and brutali8ed in spirit2can never befull* evaluated in 'onetar* ter's. he +ounds fester and the scarsre'ain to hu'iliate hi' to his d*in) da*, even as he cries in an)uishfor retribution, denial of +hich is li(e rubbin) salt on bruised tissues.

As heretofore stated, the pri'ac* of hu'an ri)hts H freedo' ofe1pression, of peaceful asse'bl* and of petition for redress of

)rievances H over propert* ri)hts has been sustained.

1

E'phaticreiteration of this basic tenet as a coveted boon H at once the shieldand ar'or of the di)nit* and +orth of the hu'an personalit*, the all2consu'in) ideal of our enli)htened civili8ation H beco'es ur dut*,if freedo' and social =ustice have an* 'eanin) at all for hi' +hotoils so that capital can produce econo'ic )oods that can )eneratehappiness for all. o re)ard the de'onstration a)ainst police officers,not a)ainst the e'plo*er, as evidence of bad faith in collectivebar)ainin) and hence a violation of the collective bar)ainin)a)ree'ent and a cause for the dis'issal fro' e'plo*'ent of thede'onstratin) e'plo*ees, stretches undul* the co'pass of thecollective bar)ainin) a)ree'ent, is >a potent 'eans of inhibitin)speech> and therefore inflicts a 'oral as +ell as 'ortal +ound on theconstitutional )uarantees of free e1pression, of peaceful asse'bl*and of petition. 19

he collective bar)ainin) a)ree'ent +hich fi1es the +or(in) shifts ofthe e'plo*ees, accordin) to the respondent Court IndustrialRelations, in effect i'poses on the +or(ers the >dut* ... to observere)ular +or(in) hours.> he strain construction of the Court ofIndustrial Relations that a stipulated +or(in) shifts den* the +or(ersthe ri)ht to sta)e 'ass de'onstration a)ainst police abuses durin)+or(in) hours, constitutes a virtual t*rann* over the 'ind and life the

16

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

17/27

+or(ers and deserves severe conde'nation. Renunciation of thefreedo' should not be predicated on such a slender )round.

he 'ass de'onstration sta)ed b* the e'plo*ees on March @, $%"%could not have been le)all* en=oined b* an* court, such an in=unction

+ould be trenchin) upon the freedo' e1pression of the +or(ers,even if it le)all* appears to be ille)al pic(etin) or stri(e. 20herespondent Court of Industrial Relations in the case at bar concedesthat the 'ass de'onstration +as not a declaration of a stri(e >as thesa'e not rooted in an* industrial dispute althou)h there is concertedact and the occurrence of a te'porar* stoppa)e +or(.> -Anne1 >!>,p. @#, rec..

he respondent fir' clai's that there +as no need for all itse'plo*ees to participate in the de'onstration and that the*su))ested to the Fnion that onl* the first and re)ular shift fro' "

A.M. to 5 P.M. should report for +or( in order that loss or da'a)e to

the fir' +ill be averted. his stand failed appreciate the sine 5ua nonof an effective de'onstration especiall* b* a labor union, na'el* theco'plete unit* of the Fnion 'e'bers as +ell as their total presenceat the de'onstration site in order to )enerate the 'a1i'u's*'path* for the validit* of their cause but also i''ediatel* actionon the part of the correspondin) )overn'ent a)encies +ith

=urisdiction over the issues the* raised a)ainst the local police.Circulation is one of the aspects of freedo' of e1pression. 21Ifde'onstrators are reduced b* one2third, then b* that 'uch thecirculation of the issues raised b* the de'onstration is di'inished.he 'ore the participants, the 'ore persons can be apprised of thepurpose of the rall*. Moreover, the absence of one2third of their

'e'bers +ill be re)arded as a substantial indication of disunit* intheir ran(s +hich +ill enervate their position and abet continuedalle)ed police persecution. At an* rate, the Fnion notified theco'pan* t+o da*s in advance of their pro=ected de'onstration andthe co'pan* could have 'ade arran)e'ents to counteract orprevent +hatever losses it 'i)ht sustain b* reason of the absence ofits +or(ers for one da*, especiall* in this case +hen the Fnionreuested it to e1cuse onl* the da*2shift e'plo*ees +ho +ill =oin thede'onstration on March @, $%"% +hich reuest the Fnion reiteratedin their tele)ra' received b* the co'pan* at %4#6 in the 'ornin) ofMarch @, $%"%, the da* of the 'ass de'onstration -pp. @52@3, rec..

here +as a lac( of hu'an understandin) or co'passion on the partof the fir' in re=ectin) the reuest of the Fnion for e1cuse fro' +or(for the da* shifts in order to carr* out its 'ass de'onstration. And tore)ard as a )round for dis'issal the 'ass de'onstration helda)ainst the Pasi) police, not a)ainst the co'pan*, is )rossvindictiveness on the part of the e'plo*er, +hich is as unchristian asit is unconstitutional.

III

he respondent co'pan* is the one )uilt* of unfair labor practice.Because the refusal on the part of the respondent fir' to per'it allits e'plo*ees and +or(ers to =oin the 'ass de'onstration a)ainstalle)ed police abuses and the subseuent separation of the ei)ht -/petitioners fro' the service constituted an unconstitutional restrainton the freedo' of e1pression, freedo' of asse'bl* and freedo'petition for redress of )rievances, the respondent fir' co''itted an

unfair labor practice defined in Section @-a2$ in relation to Section 3of Republic Act No. /, other+ise (no+n as the Industrial Peace

Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. / )uarantees to the e'plo*eesthe ri)ht >to en)a)e in concert activities for ... 'utual aid orprotection>9 +hile Section @-a2$ re)ards as an unfair labor practicefor an e'plo*er interfere +ith, restrain or coerce e'plo*ees in thee1ercise their ri)hts )uaranteed in Section hree.>

e repeat that the obvious purpose of the 'ass de'onstrationsta)ed b* the +or(ers of the respondent fir' on March @, $%"%, +asfor their 'utual aid and protection a)ainst alle)ed police abuses,denial of +hich +as interference +ith or restraint on the ri)ht of the

e'plo*ees to en)a)e in such co''on action to better shieldthe'selves a)ainst such alle)ed police indi)nities. he insistence onthe part of the respondent fir' that the +or(ers for the 'ornin) andre)ular shift should not participate in the 'ass de'onstration, underpain of dis'issal, +as as heretofore stated, >a potent 'eans ofinhibitin) speech.> 22

Such a concerted action for their 'utual help and protectiondeserves at least eual protection as the concerted action ofe'plo*ees in )ivin) publicit* to a letter co'plaint char)in) ban(

17

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

18/27

president +ith i''oralit*, nepotis', favoritis' an discri'ination inthe appoint'ent and pro'otion of ban e'plo*ees. 23e furtherruled in the Republic Savin)s Ban( case, supra, that for thee'plo*ees to co'e +ithin the protective 'antle of Section 3 inrelation to Section @-a2$ on Republic Act No. /, >it is notnecessar* that union activit* be involved or that collective bar)ainin)be conte'plated,> as lon) as the concerted activit* is for thefurtherance of their interests. 2D

As stated clearl* in the stipulation of facts e'bodied in theuestioned order of respondent Court dated Septe'ber $#, $%"%,the co'pan*, >+hile e1pressl* ac(no+led)in), that thede'onstration is an inalienable ri)ht of the Fnion )uaranteed b* theConstitution,> nonetheless e'phasi8ed that >an* de'onstration forthat 'atter should not undul* pre=udice the nor'al operation of theco'pan*> and >+arned the PBME representatives that +or(ers+ho belon) to the first and re)ular shifts, +ho +ithout previous leave

of absence approved b* the Co'pan*, particularl* the officerspresent +ho are the or)ani8ers of the de'onstration, +ho shall fail toreport for +or( the follo+in) 'ornin) -March @, $%"% shall bedis'issed, because such failure is a violation of the e1istin) CBAand, therefore, +ould be a'ountin) to an ille)al stri(e -9> -p. III,petitioners brief. Such threat of dis'issal tended to coerce thee'plo*ees fro' =oinin) the 'ass de'onstration. ;o+ever, theissues that the e'plo*ees raised a)ainst the local police, +ere 'orei'portant to the' because the* had the coura)e to proceed +ith thede'onstration, despite such threat of dis'issal. he 'ost that couldhappen to the' +as to lose a da*s +a)e b* reason of their absencefro' +or( on the da* of the de'onstration. ne da*s pa* 'eans'uch to a laborer, 'ore especiall* if he has a fa'il* to support. et,the* +ere +illin) to fore)o their one2da* salar* hopin) that theirde'onstration +ould brin) about the desired relief fro' policeabuses. But 'ana)e'ent +as ada'ant in refusin) to reco)ni8e thesuperior le)iti'ac* of their ri)ht of free speech, free asse'bl* andthe ri)ht to petition for redress.

Because the respondent co'pan* ostensibl* did not find itnecessar* to de'and fro' the +or(ers proof of the truth of thealle)ed abuses inflicted on the' b* the local police, it thereb*concedes that the evidence of such abuses should properl* be

sub'itted to the correspondin) authorities havin) =urisdiction overtheir co'plaint and to +ho' such co'plaint 'a* be referred b* thePresident of the Philippines for proper investi)ation and action +ith avie+ to disciplinin) the local police officers involved.

n the other hand, +hile the respondent Court of Industrial Relationsfound that the de'onstration >paral*8ed to a lar)e e1tent theoperations of the co'plainant co'pan*,> the respondent Court ofIndustrial Relations did not 'a(e an* findin) as to the fact of lossactuall* sustained b* the fir'. his si)nificant circu'stance can onl*'ean that the fir' did not sustain an* loss or da'a)e. It did notpresent evidence as to +hether it lost e1pected profits for failure toco'pl* +ith purchase orders on that da*9 or that penalties +eree1acted fro' it b* custo'ers +hose orders could not be filled thatda* of the de'onstration9 or that purchase orders +ere cancelled b*the custo'ers b* reason of its failure to deliver the 'aterialsordered9 or that its o+n euip'ent or 'aterials or products +ere

da'a)ed due to absence of its +or(ers on March @, $%"%. n thecontrar*, the co'pan* saved a si8able a'ount in the for' of +a)esfor its hundreds of +or(ers, cost of fuel, +ater and electricconsu'ption that da*. Such savin)s could have a'pl* co'pensatedfor unreali8ed profits or da'a)es it 'i)ht have sustained b* reasonof the absence of its +or(ers for onl* one da*.

I

Apart fro' violatin) the constitutional )uarantees of free speech andasse'bl* as +ell as the ri)ht to petition for redress of )rievances ofthe e'plo*ees, the dis'issal of the ei)ht -/ leaders of the +or(ers

for proceedin) +ith the de'onstration and conseuentl* bein)absent fro' +or(, constitutes a denial of social =ustice li(e+iseassured b* the funda'ental la+ to these lo+l* e'plo*ees. Section #of Article II of the Constitution i'poses upon the State >the pro'otionof social =ustice to insure the +ell2bein) and econo'ic securit* of allof the people,> +hich )uarantee is e'phasi8ed b* the other directivein Section " of Article KI of the Constitution that >the State shallafford protection to labor ...>. Respondent Court of IndustrialRelations as an a)enc* of the State is under obli)ation at all ti'es to)ive 'eanin) and substance to these constitutional )uarantees infavor of the +or(in) 'an9 for other+ise these constitutional

18

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

19/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

20/27

the Constitution, is not onl* inco'patible +ith the basic tenet ofconstitutional )overn'ent that the Constitution is superior to an*statute or subordinate rules and re)ulations, but also does violenceto natural reason and lo)ic. he do'inance and superiorit* of theconstitutional ri)ht over the aforesaid Court of Industrial Relationsprocedural rule of necessit* should be affir'ed. Such a Court ofIndustrial Relations rule as applied in this case does not i'ple'entor reinforce or stren)then the constitutional ri)hts affected, butinstead constrict the sa'e to the point of nullif*in) the en=o*'entthereof b* the petitionin) e'plo*ees. Said Court of IndustrialRelations rule, pro'ul)ated as it +as pursuant to a 'ere le)islativedele)ation, is unreasonable and therefore is be*ond the authorit*)ranted b* the Constitution and the la+. A period of five -# da*s+ithin +hich to file a 'otion for reconsideration is too short,especiall* for the a))rieved +or(ers, +ho usuall* do not have theread* funds to 'eet the necessar* e1penses therefor. In case of theCourt of Appeals and the Supre'e Court, a period of fifteen -$#da*s has been fi1ed for the filin) of the 'otion for re hearin) orreconsideration -See. $6, Rule #$9 Sec. $, Rule #59 Sec. $, Rule #",Revised Rules of Court. he dela* in the filin) of the 'otion forreconsideration could have been onl* one da* if Septe'ber 5/, $%"%+as not a Sunda*. his fact accentuates the unreasonableness ofthe Court of Industrial are concerned.

It should be stressed here that the 'otion for reconsideration datedSepte'ber 5&, $%"%, is based on the )round that the order sou)ht tobe reconsidered >is not in accordance +ith la+, evidence and factsadduced durin) the hearin),> and li(e+ise pra*s for an e1tension often -$6 da*s +ithin +hich to file ar)u'ents pursuant to Sections $#,$" and $& of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations -Anne1>:>, pp. #&2"6, rec.9 althou)h the ar)u'ents +ere actuall* filed b*the herein petitioners on ctober $@, $%"% -Anne1 >I>, pp. &62&3,rec., lon) after the $62da* period reuired for the filin) of suchsupportin) ar)u'ents counted fro' the filin) of the 'otion forreconsideration. ;erein petitioners received onl* on ctober 5/,$%"% the resolution dated ctober %, $%"% dis'issin) the 'otion forreconsideration for bein)pro forma since it +as filed be*ond there)le'entar* period -Anne1 >0>, pp. &@2, rec.

It is true that e ruled in several cases that +here a 'otion toreconsider is filed out of ti'e, or +here the ar)u'ents in suppf such'otion are filed be*ond the $6 da* re)le'entar* period provided forb* the Court of Industrial Relations rules, the order or decisionsub=ect of29 reconsideration beco'es final and unappealable. Butin all these cases, the constitutional ri)hts of free e1pression, freeasse'bl* and petition +ere not involved.

It is a procedural rule that )enerall* all causes of action anddefenses presentl* available 'ust be specificall* raised in theco'plaint or ans+er9 so that an* cause of action or defense notraised in such pleadin)s, is dee'ed +aived. ;o+ever, aconstitutional issue can be raised an* ti'e, even for the first ti'e onappeal, if it appears that the deter'ination of the constitutional issueis necessar* to a decision of the case, the ver* lis mota of the case+ithout the resolution of +hich no final and co'plete deter'inationof the dispute can be 'ade. 30It is thus seen that a procedural rule of

Con)ress or of the Supre'e Court )ives +a* to a constitutional ri)ht.In the instant case, the procedural rule of the Court of IndustrialRelations, a creature of Con)ress, 'ust li(e+ise *ield to theconstitutional ri)hts invo(ed b* herein petitioners even before theinstitution of the unfair labor practice char)ed a)ainst the' and intheir defense to the said char)e.

In the case at bar, enforce'ent of the basic hu'an freedo'ssheltered no less b* the or)anic la+, is a 'ost co'pellin) reason toden* application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule +hichi'pin)es on such hu'an ri)hts. 30

It is an accepted principle that the Supre'e Court has the inherentpo+er to >suspend its o+n rules or to e1cept a particular case fro'its operation, +henever the purposes of =ustice reuire.> 30) Mr.0ustice Barredo in his concurrin) opinion in (strada vs. Sto.'omingo. 30reiterated this principle and added that

Under this authorit/, this ourt is enabled to cove6ith all situations 6ithout concerning itself about

procedural niceties that do not s5uare 6ith the needto do )ustice, in an/ case, 6ithout further loss of

20

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

21/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

22/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

23/27

Gabor, the Fnion 'e'bers +ho are not officers, +ere not dis'issedand onl* the Fnion itself and its thirteen -$3 officers +ere specificall*na'ed as respondents in the unfair labor practice char)e fileda)ainst the' b* the fir' -pp. $"256, respondents Brief9 Anne1es >A>,>B> and >C>, pp. 56236, rec.. Counsel for respondent fir' insinuatesthat not all the @66 or so e'plo*ee participated in the de'onstration,for +hich reason onl* the Fnion and its thirteen -$3 officers +erespecificall* na'ed in the unfair labor practice char)e -p. 56,respondents brief. If that +ere so, then 'an*, if not all, of the'ornin) and re)ular shifts reported for +or( on March @, $%"% andthat, as a conseuence, the fir' continued in operation that da* anddid not sustain an* da'a)e.

he appropriate penalt* H if it deserves an* penalt* at all H shouldhave been si'pl* to char)e said one2da* absence a)ainst theirvacation or sic( leave. But to dis'iss the ei)ht -/ leaders of thepetitioner Fnion is a 'ost cruel penalt*, since as aforestated theFnion leaders depend on their +a)es for their dail* sustenance as+ell as that of their respective fa'ilies aside fro' the fact that it is alethal blo+ to unionis', +hile at the sa'e ti'e stren)thenin) theoppressive hand of the pett* t*rants in the localities.

Mr. 0ustice Dou)las articulated this pointed re'inder4

he challen)e to our liberties co'es f reuentl* notfro' those +ho consciousl* see( to destro* ours*ste' of :overn'ent, but fro' 'en of )ood+ill H)ood 'en +ho allo+ their proper concerns to blindthe' to the fact that +hat the* propose to

acco'plish involves an i'pair'ent of libert*.

... he Motives of these 'en are oftenco''endable. hat +e 'ust re'e'ber, ho+ever,is thatpreservation of liberties does not depend onmotives. A suppression of libert/ has the sameeffect 6hether the suppress or be a reformer or anoutla6. The onl/ protection against misguided &ealis a constant alertness of the infractions of theguarantees of libert/contained in our Constitution.

(ach surrender of libert/ to the demands of themoment ma%es easier another, larger surrender.The battle over the "ill of Rights is a never endingone.

... The liberties of an/ person are the liberties of allof us.

... In short, the -iberties of none are safe unless theliberties of all are protected.

... "ut even if 6e should sense no danger to our o6nliberties, even if 6e feel secure because 6e belongto a group that is important and respected, 6e mustrecogni&e that our "ill of Rights is a code of fair pla/for the less fortunate that 6e in all honor and goodconscience must be observe. 31

he case at bar is +orse.

Mana)e'ent has sho+n not onl* lac( of )ood2+ill or )ood intention,but a co'plete lac( of s*'pathetic understandin) of the pli)ht of itslaborers +ho clai' that the* are bein) sub=ected to indi)nities b* thelocal police, It +as 'ore e1pedient for the fir' to conserve its inco'eor profits than to assist its e'plo*ees in their fi)ht for their freedo'sand securit* a)ainst alle)ed pett* t*rannies of local police officers.his is sheer opportunis'. Such opportunis' and e1pedienc*resorted to b* the respondent co'pan* assaulted the i''unitiesand +elfare of its e'plo*ees. It +as pure and i'ple'ent selfishness,

if not )reed.

f happ* relevance is the $%"& case of Republic Savings "an% vs...R., 32+here the petitioner Ban( dis'issed ei)ht -/ e'plo*eesfor havin) +ritten and published >a patentl* libelous letter ... to theBan( president de'andin) his resi)nation on the )rounds ofi''oralit*, nepotis' in the appoint'ent and favoritis' as +ell asdiscri'ination in the pro'otion of ban( e'plo*ees.> herein, thru Mr.0ustice Castro, e ruled4

23

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

24/27

It +ill avail the Ban( none to )loat over thisad'ission of the respondents. Assu'in) that thelatter acted in their individual capacities +hen the*+rote the letter2char)e the* +ere nonethelessprotected for the* +ere en)a)ed in concertedactivit*, in the e1ercise of their ri)ht of selfor)ani8ation that includes concerted activit* for'utual aid and protection, -Section 3 of the IndustrialPeace Act ... his is the vie+ of so'e 'e'bers ofthis Court. !or, as has been aptl* stated, the )oiningin protests or demands, even b/ a small group ofemplo/ees, if in furtherance of their interests assuch, is a concerted activit/ protected b/ thendustrial Peace Act. t is not necessar/ that unionactivit/ be involved or that collective bargaining becontemplated. -Annot., " A.G.R. 5d @$" $%@%O.

111 111 111

Instead of stiflin) criticis', the Ban( should haveallo+ed the respondents to air their )rievances.

111 111 111

he Ban( defends its action b* invo(in) its ri)ht todiscipline for +hat it calls the respondents libel in)ivin) undue publicit* to their letter2char)e. o besure, the ri)ht of self2or)ani8ation of e'plo*ees isnot unli'ited -Republic Aviation Corp. vs. NGRB 35@

F.S. &%3 $%@#O, as the ri)ht of the e'plo*er todischar)e for cause -Philippine Education Co. v.Fnion of Phil. Educ. E'plo*ees, G2$3&&3, April 5%,$%"6 is undenied. he Industrial Peace Act doesnot touch the nor'al e1ercise of the ri)ht of thee'plo*er to select his e'plo*ees or to dischar)ethe'. It is directed solel* a)ainst the abuse of thatri)ht b* interferin) +ith the countervailin) ri)ht of selfor)ani8ation -Phelps Dod)e Corp. v. NGRB 3$3 F.S.$&& $%@$O...

111 111 111

In the final su' and substance, this ourt is inunanimit/ that the "an%7s conduct, identified as aninterference 6ith the emplo/ees7 right of self+

organi&ation or as a retaliator/ action, andor as arefusal to bar)ain collectivel*, constituted an unfairlabor practice +ithin the 'eanin) and intend'ent ofsection @-a of the Industrial Peace Act. -E'phasissupplied. 33

If free e1pression +as accorded reco)nition and protection to fortif*labor unionis' in the Republic Savin)s case, supra, +here theco'plaint assailed the 'oralit* and inte)rit* of the ban( president noless, such reco)nition and protection for free speech, free asse'bl*and ri)ht to petition are rendered all the 'ore =ustifiable and 'orei'perative in the case at bar, +here the 'ass de'onstration +as not

a)ainst the co'pan* nor an* of its officers.

;ERE!RE, =ud)e'ent is hereb* rendered4

-$ settin) aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Courtof Industrial Relations dated Septe'ber $# and ctober %, $%"%9 and

-5 directin) the re instate'ent of the herein ei)ht -/ petitioners, +ithfull bac( pa* fro' the date of their separation fro' the service untilre instated, 'inus one da*s pa* and +hatever earnin)s the* 'i)hthave reali8ed fro' other sources durin) their separation fro' theservice.

ith costs a)ainst private respondent Philippine Bloo'in) Co'pan*,Inc.

SUPREME COURTF!RST #!V!S!ON

24

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

25/27

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

26/27

roads b* acts of the National Asse'bl* or b* e1ecutiveorders of the President of the Philippines, the Director ofPublic or(s, +ith the approval of the Secretar* of Publicor(s and Co''unications, shall pro'ul)ate the necessar*rules and re)ulations to re)ulate and control the use of andtraffic on such roads and streets. Such rules and re)ulations,+ith the approval of the President, 'a* contain provisionscontrollin) or re)ulatin) the construction of buildin)s or otherstructures +ithin a reasonable distance fro' alon) thenational roads. Such roads 'a* be te'poraril* closed to an*or all classes of traffic b* the Director of Public or(s andhis dul* authori8ed representatives +henever the conditionof the road or the traffic thereon 'a(es such actionnecessar* or advisable in the public convenience andinterest, or for a specified period, +ith the approval of theSecretar* of Public or(s and Co''unications.

he above provisions of la+ do not confer le)islative po+er upon the

Director of Public or(s and the Secretar* of Public or(s andCo''unications. he authorit* therein conferred upon the' andIn the case of People vs. Rosenthal and s'e7a, :.R. Nos. @"6&"and @"6&&, pro'ul)ated 0une $5, $%3%, and in Pan)asinanransportation vs. he Public Service Co''ission, :.R. No. @&6"#,pro'ul)ated 0une 5", $%@6, this Court had occasion to observe thatthe principle of separation of po+ers has been 'ade to adapt itself tothe co'ple1ities of 'odern )overn'ents, )ivin) rise to the adoption,+ithin certain li'its, of the principle of Qsubordinate le)islation, notonl* in the Fnited States and En)land but in practicall* all 'odern)overn'ents. Accordin)l*, +ith the )ro+in) co'ple1it* of 'odernlife, the 'ultiplication of the sub=ects of )overn'ental re)ulations,

and the increased difficult* of ad'inisterin) the la+s, the ri)idit* ofthe theor* of separation of )overn'ental po+ers has, to a lar)ee1tent, been rela1ed b* per'ittin) the dele)ation of )reater po+ersb* the le)islative and vestin) a lar)er a'ount of discretion inad'inistrative and e1ecutive officials, not onl* in the e1ecution of thela+s, but also in the pro'ul)ation of certain rules and re)ulationscalculated to pro'ote public interest.he petitioner further contends that the rules and re)ulationspro'ul)ated b* the respondents pursuant to the provisions ofCo''on+ealth Act No. #@/ constitute an unla+ful interference +ith

le)iti'ate business or trade and abrid)e the ri)ht to personal libert*and freedo' of loco'otion. Co''on+ealth Act No. #@/ +as passedb* the National Asse'bl* in the e1ercise of the para'ount policepo+er of the state.

Said Act, b* virtue of +hich the rules and re)ulations co'plained of+ere pro'ul)ated, ai's to pro'ote safe transit upon and avoidobstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of thepublic. In enactin) said la+, therefore, the National Asse'bl* +aspro'pted b* considerations of public convenience and +elfare. It+as inspired b* a desire to relieve con)estion of traffic. +hich is, tosa* the least, a 'enace to public safet*. Public +elfare, then, lies atthe botto' of the enact'ent of said la+, and the state in order topro'ote the )eneral +elfare 'a* interfere +ith personal libert*, +ithpropert*, and +ith business and occupations. Persons and propert*'a* be sub=ected to all (inds of restraints and burdens, in order tosecure the )eneral co'fort, health, and prosperit* of the state -F.S.vs. :o'e8 0esus, 3$ Phil., 5$/. o this funda'ental ai' of our

:overn'ent the ri)hts of the individual are subordinated. Gibert* is ablessin) +ithout +hich life is a 'iser*, but libert* should not be 'adeto prevail over authorit* because then societ* +ill fall into anarch*.Neither should authorit* be 'ade to prevail over libert* because thenthe individual +ill fall into slaver*. he citi8en should achieve thereuired balance of libert* and authorit* in his 'ind throu)heducation and personal discipline, so that there 'a* be establishedthe resultant euilibriu', +hich 'eans peace and order andhappiness for all. he 'o'ent )reater authorit* is conferred uponthe )overn'ent, lo)icall* so 'uch is +ithdra+n fro' the residuu' oflibert* +hich resides in the people. he parado1 lies in the fact thatthe apparent curtail'ent of libert* is precisel* the ver* 'eans of

insurin) its preservation.

26

8/12/2019 HURL Cases 1

27/27

he scope of police po+er (eeps e1pandin) as civili8ation advances.As +as said in the case of Dobbins vs. Gos An)eles -$%# F.S. 553,53/9 @% G. ed. $"%, Qthe ri)ht to e1ercise the police po+er is acontinuin) one, and a business la+ful toda* 'a* in the future,because of the chan)ed situation, the )ro+th of population or othercauses, beco'e a 'enace to the public health and +elfare, and bereuired to *ield to the public )ood. And in People vs. Po'ar -@"Phil., @@6, it +as observed that Qadvancin) civili8ation is brin)in)+ithin the police po+er of the state toda* thin)s +hich +ere notthou)ht of as bein) +ithin such po+er *esterda*. he develop'entof civili8ation, the rapidl* increasin) population, the )ro+th of publicopinion, +ith an increasin) desire on the part of the 'asses and ofthe )overn'ent to loo( after and care for the interests of theindividuals of the state, have brou)ht +ithin the police po+er 'an*uestions for re)ulation +hich for'erl* +ere not so considered.

he petitioner finall* avers that the rules and re)ulations co'plained

of infrin)e upon the constitutional precept re)ardin) the pro'otion ofsocial =ustice to insure the +ell2bein) and econo'ic securit* of all thepeople. he pro'otion of social =ustice, ho+ever, is to be achievednot throu)h a 'ista(en s*'path* to+ards an* )iven )roup. Social

=ustice is Qneither co''unis', nor despotis', nor ato'is', noranarch*, but the hu'ani8ation of la+s and the euali8ation of socialand econo'ic forces b* the State so that =ustice in its rational andob=ectivel* secular conception 'a* at least be appro1i'ated. Social

=ustice 'eans the pro'otion of the +elfare of all the people, theadoption b* the :overn'ent of 'easures calculated to insureecono'ic stabilit* of all the co'petent ele'ents of societ*, throu)hthe 'aintenance of a proper econo'ic and social euilibriu' in the

interrelations of the 'e'bers of the co''unit*, constitutionall*,throu)h the adoption of 'easures le)all* =ustifiable, or e1tra2constitutionall*, throu)h the e1ercise of po+ers underl*in) thee1istence of all )overn'ents on the ti'e2honored principle of salus

populi est suprema le0.

Social =ustice, therefore, 'ust be founded on the reco)nition of thenecessit* of interdependence a'on) divers and diverse units of asociet* and of the protection that should be euall* and evenl*e1tended to all )roups as a co'bined force in our social and

econo'ic life, consistent +ith the funda'ental and para'ountob=ective of the state of pro'otin) the health, co'fort, and uiet ofall persons, and of brin)in) about Qthe )reatest )ood to the )reatestnu'ber.

!N V!E OF THE FOREGO!NG, the rit of Prohibition Pra*ed for ishereb* denied, +ith costs a)ainst the petitioner.

So ordered.

A8&$I, C.J., !-p$ril, #i: &( Horrill$&o, JJ., o&r.

27