Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills

2/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton
Mills, Inc.
*
No. L-33987. September 4, 1975.
LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, RAFAEL

NEPOMUCENO, MARIANO CASTILLO, NELLY
ACEVEDO, RIZALINO CASTILLO and RAFAEL
COMBALICER petitioners, vs. LIBERTY COTTON
MILLS, INC., PHILIPPINE
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
513
VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 513

Mills, Inc.
ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNION (PAFLU) and

the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
Labor relations; Labor unions; Status of national union in

relation to local union affiliated with it; Case at bar.—In the
Collective Bargaining Agreements, it appears that PAFLU has
been recognized as the sole bargaining agent for all the employees
of the Company other than its supervisors and security guards.
The PAFLU, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had the status
of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of the
association free to serve the common interest of all its members
including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances
warrant. This is clearly provided in its Constitution and By-Laws,
specifically Article X on Union Affiliation.
Same; Same; Validity of disaffiliation by local union from
national union where disaffiliation in accordance with union’s
Constitution and By-Laws; Case at bar.—Under the union’s
Constitution and By-Laws, the local union shall be affiliated with
the PAFLU, and shall remain an affiliate as long as ten or more of
its members evidence their desire to continue the said local
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168dd148ab1b13ec1c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
unions affiliation. The record shows that only four out of its
members remained for 32 out of the 36 members of the Union
signed the resolution of disaffiliation. The disaffiliation was,
therefore, valid under the local’s Constitution and By-Laws
which, taken together with the Collective Bargaining Agreement,
is controlling. The disaffiliation, coming as it did from the greater
majority of its members, is more than enough to show the
collective desire of the members of the local union to sever their
relations from the mother federation. The right of disaffiliation is
inherent in the compact and such act should not have been
branded as an act of disloyalty, especially considering the cause
which impelled the union to take such a step.
Same; Same; Dismissal of employees who signed resolution of
disaffiliation; Where dismissal at the instance of the national
union, liability of company limited only to reinstatement of
employees dismissed; Case at bar.—Acting on the request of the
mother federation the Company sent notices of termination to the
officers of the local union, heavily relying on the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. The stipulation in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement does not bind the courts much less
released the Company from liability should a finding for unfair
labor practice be positive. `However, considering that the dispute
revolved around the mother federation and its local, “with the
company dismissing the workers at
514
Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.
the instance of the mother federation, the Company’s liability

should be limited to the immediate reinstatement of the workers.
Same; Same; Same; Liability of national union to pay
backwages of dismissed employees; Payment of backwages
equivalent to three years’ wages without deduction or qualification.
—Considering that the dismissal of the employees was effected
without previous hearing, and at the instance of PAFLU, this
mother federation should be held liable to the dismissed
Employees for the payment of their back wages. Following the
precedent of Mercury Drug Co. vs. CIR, of fixing an amount of net
backwages and doing away with the protracted process of
determining the complainants-workers’ earnings elsewhere
during the period of their illegal dismissal, the Court fixes the
amount of backwages to be paid under this decision to the
complainants-workers at three (3) years backwages without
deduction or qualification.
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

of Industrial Relations.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Carlos E. Santiago for petitioners.
Paredes, Poblador, Nazareno, Azada, Tomacruz &
Paredes for respondent Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.
Ernesto D. Llaguno for respondent Union.
Jose K. Manguiat, Jr. for respondent Court.
ESGUERRA, J.:
Petition for Certiorari to review the decision dated March

30, 1971 of the Court of Industrial Relations in Case No.
4216, dismissing petitioners’ complaint for unfair labor
practice.
The factual background of this case is as follows:
The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, adopted
1
its Constitution and By-
laws on January 1, 1959. Among other things, the said
Constitution provided:
ARTICLE I—NAME AND DOMICILE
“Section 1. The name of organization shall be Liberty Cotton Mills

Workers Union-PAFLU.
“Section 2. This Union shall have its office at 1233 Tecson,
Tindalo, Tondo, Manila.
_______________
1 Constitution and By-Laws p. 23 Record.
515

Mills, Inc.
xxxx
ARTICLE X—UNION AFFILIATION
“Section 1. The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-Paflu shall be

affiliated with the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions,
otherwise known as PAFLU, and shall remain an affiliate as long
as ten or more of its members evidence their desire to continue
the said local union’s affiliation, in accordance with the Paflu
Constitution, Article XI-Paragraph 11:15 thereof;
ARTICLE XIII—CHARGES, TRIALS, AND IMPEACHMENT OF

OFFICERS AND MEMBERS: APPEALS
“Section 1. Any member or officer of the Liberty Cotton Mills

Workers Union-Paflu may be charged, tried or impeached if an
officer, in accordance with this and the PAFLU CONSTITUTION.
2
2
On October 1, 1959, a Collective Bargaining Agreement
was entered into by and between the Company and the
Union represented by PAFLU. Said Agreement contained
these clear and unequivocal provisions:
“This Agreement, made and entered into this 1st day of October,
1959, in the City of Manila, by and between
The LIBERTY COTTON MILLS INC., a corporation duly organized and

existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal office at 549
San Francisco Street, Karuhatan, Polo, Bulacan, hereinafter referred to
as the COMPANY, represented in this Act by its President, Mr. RAFAEL
GOSINGCO: AND
THE PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, a
legitimate labor organization existing and operating under the laws of
the Philippines, with postal address at 1233 Tecson, Tindalo, Tondo,
Manila, hereinafter referred to as the UNION, represented in this Act by
its National Treasurer and duly authorized representative, Mr.
CATALINO G. LUZANO, herein acting for and in behalf of its affiliate
the LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, and the
employees of the Company in the appropriate bargaining unit hereinafter
defined:
WITNESSETH:
I. UNION RECOGNITION
The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole bargaining

agent for all of its employees, other than supervisors x x x
_______________
2 Collective Bargaining Agreement p. 29 Record.
516

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.
consonant with the certification of the said UNION by the Court

of Industrial Relations in Case No. 627-MC, entitled “In re
Petition for Certification Election, Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.,
petitioner.”
III. UNION SECURITY
All employees who, at the time of the signing of this

Agreement, are members of the UNION, or who, at any time
during the effectivity of this Agreement, may join the UNION,
shall, as a condition for continued employment, remain members
of the UNION while this agreement remains in force; any such
employee, who, at any time during the life of this agreement, shall
resign from the UNION or be expelled therefrom in accordance
with its Constitution and By-Laws for non-payment of union dues
or other duly approved union assessments, or for disloyalty to the

UNION shall be dismissed from employment by the COMPANY
upon request in writing by the UNION, which shall hold the
COMPANY free from any liability arising from or caused by such
dismissal.
XI. TERM
This Agreement shall be effective from October 1, 1959 to

September 30, 1961, during which time it shall be binding upon
the parties hereto and all the employees of COMPANY comprised
within the appropriate bargaining unit defined above, and may
not be modified by court action, by concerted activities or by any
other means. x x x Should either party fail to give written notice
to the other of its desire to amend or discontinue this Agreement
at least thirty (30) days from the expiry date set forth above, this
Agreement shall be continued in force for one (1) year, and
thereafter for yearly terms; unless written notice is given at least
thirty (30) days from the expiration of the contract.
The above Collective Bargaining

3
Agreement was amended
on February 28, 1964, thus:
“Article III. UNION SECURITY
Additional Clause
The Company agrees to encourage casual workers and non-union

members to join the Union which is the sole and exclusive agent
for all the employees covered by this Agreement.
_______________
3 Amendment to Collective Bargaining Agreement p. 34 Record.
517

Mills, Inc.
“Article XI. DURATION
The Duration of this Agreement shall be for two (2) years, that is
from November 2, 1963 up to November, 1965.”
The Agreements aforementioned bore the signatures of

representatives of both the Company and the PAFLU, and
the incumbent President of the local union.
On March 13, 1964, while the Collective Bargaining
Agreement was in full force, Marciano Castillo and Rafael
Nepomuceno, President and Vice-President, respectively, of
the local union, wrote PAFLU, its mother federation,
complaining about the legal counsel assigned by the

PAFLU to assist them in a ULP case (Case No. 4001) they
filed against the Company. In said letter, the local union
expressed its dissatisfaction and loss of confidence in the
PAFLU lawyers, claiming that PAFLU never lifted a finger
regarding this particular complaint.
On May 17, 1964 thirty two (32) out of the 36 members
of the local union disaffiliated themselves from respondent
PAFLU pursuant to their local union’s Constitution and
By-Laws, specifically Article X thereof, supra (p. 12
Record). A copy of the signed resolution of disaffiliation was
furnished the Company as well as the Bureau of Labor
Relations. The following day, the local union wrote the
Company and required the turn-over of the checked-off
dues directly to its Treasurer.
On May 27, 1964, PAFLU, thru its National Secretary
wrote the Company this letter:
“This is to inform your good office that sometime last May 25,
1964, our federation was in receipt of a letter signed by 32 persons
and informing us of their desire to disaffiliate the local union from
the mother federation-PAFLU. The members and officers who
made the letter have no right to do the same under our existing
contract and under the PAFLU’s Constitution and By-Laws.
“We wish to make it clear with the management that the
contractural union in our contract which was signed a few months
ago is the Philippine Association of Free Labor Union (PAFLU).
The actuation made by the supposed union members is
inconsistent with the present contract we have and under the
provisions of “Maintenance of Union Membership” they can all be
dismissed. Under the PAFLU’s Constitution that is null and void.
And in view of the disloyalty shown by those members, the
mother federation will take over the administration of the Union
in dealing with the management especially.
518

Mills, Inc.
“We inform your goodself that the mother federation is not

honoring the said letter and we request you do the same under
the circumstances.
“Hence, all the communications pertaining to union business
and other relative matters be coursed to the mother federation for
prompt action.”
And on May 29, 1964, PAFLU wrote the Company again,

this time quoting en toto Article III of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement on “Union Security” and requesting
the termination of the employment of Rafael Nepomuceno,
Marciano Castillo, Nelly Acevedo, Enrique Managan,

Rizalino Castillo and Rafael Combalicer, all petitioners
herein. PAFLU at the same time expelled the
aforementioned workers from their union membership in
the mother federation for allegedly “instigating union
disaffiliation.”
On May 30, 1964, the Company terminated the
employment of the members expelled by the PAFLU (Exhs.
“D”, “D-1” to “D-3” pp. 14-17 Record). On the last day of
May, 1964, counsel for the ousted workers wrote the
Company requesting their reinstatement. This was denied
by the Company; hence the complaint for unfair labor
practice filed with the Court of Industrial Relations.
After due hearing, the Court rendered its decision
dismissing the complaint, but with a strong
recommendation for the reinstatement of complainant
workers in respondent Company. The workers (petitioners
herein) being unsatisfied with the decision, appealed to this
Court and raised the following questions:
1. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, who

between the PAFLU and the local union is the sole
bargaining agent of the workers of the Company?
2. Was the disaffiliation of the local union from the
PAFLU valid and justified under the Constitution
and By-laws of the Union?
3. Was the disaffiliation of the Union from the PAFLU
an act of disloyalty of the petitioners (workers)
which could be a valid ground for their expulsion
from their own union and their dismissal from the
Company?
4. Does the PAFLU as the mother federation of the
union possess the power to expel the officers and
members of the union under the Constitution and
By-Laws? And assuming it has such powers, were
the petitioner workers validly expelled from the
Union in accordance with the Constitution and By-
Laws?
519

Mills, Inc.
5. May the workers be summarily dismissed by the

Company under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement even without valid proof of their valid
expulsion from their own union?
6. Did not the dismissal of only the five (5) petitioner

workers constitute discrimination, considering that
the disaffiliation was signed by more than the
majority of the union members?
All these questions boil down to the single issue of whether

or not the dismissal of the complaining employees,
petitioners herein, was justified or not. The resolution of
this question hinges on a precise and careful analysis of the
Collective Bargaining Agreements. (Exhs. “H” and “I”) In
these contracts it appears that PAFLU has been recognized
as the sole bargaining agent for all the employees of the
Company other than its supervisors and security guards.
Moreover it likewise appears that “PAFLU, represented in
this Act by its National Treasurer, and duly authorized
representative, x x x (was) acting for and in behalf of its
affiliate, the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union and the
employees of the Company, etc.” In other words, the
PAFLU, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had the
status of an agent while the local union remained the basic
unit of the association free to serve the common interest of
all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when
the circumstances warrant. This is clearly provided in its
Constitution and By-Laws, specifically Article X on Union
Affiliation, supra.
4
At this point, relevant is the ruling in an
American case:
“The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to

secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the
employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle
for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and
the association of the locals into the national union (as PAFLU)
was in furtherance of the same end. These associations are
consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations
with their members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of
the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective
action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and
conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of
association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all,
subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws
of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for
mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which
brought it into existence. “(Italics supplied)
_______________
4 Harker et al. vs. Mckissock et al. 81A 2d 480, 482.
520

Mills, Inc.
This brings Us to the question of disaffiliation which was

the root cause of the dismissal. It is claimed by PAFLU
that the local union could not have validly disaffiliated
from it as the Union Security Clause so provided. We have
meticulously read the provision of the supposed union
security clause and We cannot agree with both the stand of
PAFLU and the respondent court. For while it is correct to
say that a union security clause did exist, this clause was
limited by the provision in the Unions’ Constitution and
By-Laws, which states:
“That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-PAFLU shall be

affiliated with the PAFLU, and shall remain an affiliate as long
as ten (10) or more of its members evidence their desire to
continue the said local unions affiliation.”
Record shows that only four (4) out of its members

remained for 32 out of the 36 members of the Union signed
the resolution of disaffiliation on May 17, 1964, triggered
by the alleged negligence of PAFLU in attending to the
needs of its local union, particularly its failure to assign a
conscientious lawyer to the local to attend to the ULP case
they filed against the Company. The disaffiliation was,
therefore, valid under the local’s Constitution and By-Laws
which, taken together with the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, is controlling. The Court of Industrial
Relations likewise held in its decision that the act of
disaffiliation did not have any effect as the workers
retracted from such act. As stated by the respondent court
—
“x x x it is believed that the effect of their retraction obliterates

their participation in the resolution. Hence, under Article X of the
said Constitution and By-Laws, complainant union remained
affiliated with respondent union at the time termination of the
services of complainant workers was requested and when they
were dismissed by the Company on May 30, 1964.”
Although the fact of retraction is true, We find that the

respondent court failed to notice the fact that not all
signatories to the resolution of disaffiliation dated May 17,
1964, took part in the retraction. Only a number of
employees, 16 to be exact, retracted. Also, and this is a
significant factor, the retraction is dated June 3, 1964, or
four days after the petitioners herein had been dismissed.
There is no use in saying that the retraction obliterated the
act of disaffiliation when they were already out of the
service when it was done. The disaffiliation, coming as it
521

Mills, Inc.
did from the greater majority of its members, is more than

enough to show the collective desire of the members of the
Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union to sever their relations
from the mother federation. The right of disaffiliation is
inherent in the compact and such act should not have been
branded as an act of disloyalty, especially considering the
cause which impelled the union to take such a step.
Lastly, We will take up the process by which the
workers were dismissed. We find that it was hastily and
summarily done. The PAFLU received the resolution to
disaffiliate on or about May 25, 1964, after which it wrote
the Company about its stand, first on the 27th of May
followed by its letter of the 29th requesting for the
termination of petitioners herein for ‘disloyalty in having
instigated disaffiliation’. The Company then acting on the
request of the mother federation sent notices of termination
to the officers of the local union immediately on the day
following, or on May 30, 1964, heavily relying on the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, viz:
“x x x for disloyalty to the union shall be dismissed from

employment by the Company upon request in writing by the
Union, which shall hold the COMPANY free from any liability
arising from or caused by such dismissal.”
While the above-quoted provision may have been the basis

for the Company’s actuation, as in fact it was alleged by the
Company in its Brief, We are of the opinion that such a
stipulation does not bind the courts much less released the
Company from liability should a finding for unfair labor
practice be positive. In the case at bar, however,
considering that the dispute revolved around the mother
federation and its local, with the company dismissing the
workers at the instance of the mother federation, We
believe that the Company’s liability should be limited to
the immediate reinstatement of the workers.
Considering, however, that their dismissal was effected
without previous hearing, and at the instance of PAFLU,
this mother federation should be, as it is hereby, held liable
to the petitioners for the payment of their back wages. 5
Following the precedent of Mercury Drug Co. vs. CIR, of
fixing an amount of
_______________
5 56 SCRA 694 (Apr. 30, 1974) as applied in NASSCO vs. CIR, 57 SCRA
642, Almira vs. B.F. Goodrich Phil. Inc., 58 SCRA 120, Phil.
522

Mills, Inc.
net backwages and doing away with the protracted process

of determining the complainants-workers’ earnings
elsewhere during the period of their illegal dismissal, the
Court fixes the amount of backwages to be paid under this
decision to the complainants-workers at three (3) years
backwages without deduction or qualification.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed
and set aside and the company is hereby ordered to
immediately reinstate complainant workers, within thirty
(30) days from notice of this decision and failure to so
reinstate the workers without valid and just cause shall
make respondent company liable to the workers for the
payment of their wages from and after the expiration of
such thirty-day period. The mother federation respondent
PAFLU is sentenced to pay complainants-workers the
equivalent of three (3) years backwages without deduction
or qualification.
In view of the length of time that this dispute has been
pending, this decision shall be immediately executory upon
promulgation and notice to the parties. Without
pronouncement as to costs.
Castro (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar, Muñoz

Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
Decision reversed and set aside.
Notes.—a) Effects of collective bargaining agreement.—

The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract
constitute the law between the parties. Those who are
entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the
event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the
aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress. Nor
does it suffice as a defense that the claim is made on behalf
of non-members, for it is a well-settled doctrine that the
benefits of a collective bargaining agreement extend to the
laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit,
including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining
labor organization. Any other view would be a
discrimination on which the law frowns. (Mactum Workers
Union vs. Aboitiz, L-30241, June 30, 1972).
_______________
Rock Products Inc. vs. PAFLU, 58 SCRA 730, Feati University Faculty
Club vs. Feati University, 58 SCRA 395 and Davao Free Workers Front
vs. CIR, 60 SCRA 408.
523

Qui vs. Court of Appeals
b) Payment of backwages.—As to the amount of backwages,

the Court applies the precedent recently set in Mercury
Drug Co. vs. CIR of fixing the amount of backwages to a
just and reasonable level without qualification or deduction
so as to avoid protracted delay in the execution of the
award for backwages due to extended hearings and
unavoidable delays and difficulties encountered in
determining the earnings of the laid-off employees ordered
to be reinstated with backwages during the pendency of the
case for purposes of deducting the same from the gross
backwages awarded. As has been noted, this formula of
awarding reasonable net backwages without deduction or
qualification relieves the employees from proving or
disproving their earnings during their lay-off and the
employers from submitting counterproofs, and obviates the
twin evils of idleness on the part of the employee who
would “with folded arms, remain inactive in the
expectation that a windfall would come to him” and
attrition and protracted delay in satisfying such award on
the part of the unscrupulous employers who have seized
upon the further proceedings to determine the actual
earnings of the wrongfully dismissed or laid-off employees
to hold unduly extended hearings for each and every
employee awarded backwages and thereby render
practically nugatory such award and compel the employees
to agree to unconscionable settlements of their backwages
award in order to satisfy their dire need. (Feati University
Faculty Club (Paflu) vs. Feati University, L-31503, August
15, 1974).
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, RAFAEL

VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 513

ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNION (PAFLU) and

Labor relations; Labor unions; Status of national union in

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the instance of the mother federation, the Company’s liability

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Petition for Certiorari to review the decision dated March

ARTICLE I—NAME AND DOMICILE

“Section 1. The name of organization shall be Liberty Cotton Mills

1 Constitution and By-Laws p. 23 Record.

VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 515

ARTICLE X—UNION AFFILIATION

“Section 1. The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-Paflu shall be

ARTICLE XIII—CHARGES, TRIALS, AND IMPEACHMENT OF

“Section 1. Any member or officer of the Liberty Cotton Mills

The LIBERTY COTTON MILLS INC., a corporation duly organized and

The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole bargaining

2 Collective Bargaining Agreement p. 29 Record.

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

consonant with the certification of the said UNION by the Court

III. UNION SECURITY

All employees who, at the time of the signing of this

or other duly approved union assessments, or for disloyalty to the

This Agreement shall be effective from October 1, 1959 to

The above Collective Bargaining

“Article III. UNION SECURITY

The Company agrees to encourage casual workers and non-union

3 Amendment to Collective Bargaining Agreement p. 34 Record.

VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 517

“Article XI. DURATION

The Agreements aforementioned bore the signatures of

complaining about the legal counsel assigned by the

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“We inform your goodself that the mother federation is not

And on May 29, 1964, PAFLU wrote the Company again,

Marciano Castillo, Nelly Acevedo, Enrique Managan,

1. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, who

VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 519

5. May the workers be summarily dismissed by the

6. Did not the dismissal of only the five (5) petitioner

All these questions boil down to the single issue of whether

“The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to

4 Harker et al. vs. Mckissock et al. 81A 2d 480, 482.

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This brings Us to the question of disaffiliation which was

“That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-PAFLU shall be

Record shows that only four (4) out of its members

“x x x it is believed that the effect of their retraction obliterates

Although the fact of retraction is true, We find that the

VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 521

did from the greater majority of its members, is more than

“x x x for disloyalty to the union shall be dismissed from

While the above-quoted provision may have been the basis

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

net backwages and doing away with the protracted process

Castro (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar, Muñoz

Decision reversed and set aside.

Notes.—a) Effects of collective bargaining agreement.—

VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 523

b) Payment of backwages.—As to the amount of backwages,