Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs Liberty Cottons Mills, PAFLU

Makasiar, J.
Facts:

This a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the Supreme Court in
1975 in the dispute between the same parties. The petitioner-workers only
ask for reconsideration of the awards given.

The original decision held the defendants Liberty Cotton Mills and Philippine
Association Of Free Labor Union (PAFLU) liable for dismissal and ordered that:
o Liberty Cotton Mills reinstate the workers within 30 days, failing that
shall make respondent company liable to the workers for the payment
of their wages from and after the expiration of that period.
o PAFLU pay the workers the equivalent of three (3) years backwages
without deduction or qualification

The reliefs sought in this MR by the workers are the ff:


o That Liberty Cotton Mills be made jointly if not solidarily liable for the
payment of the 3 years backwages
o That when the workers are reinstated, their wages should be at the
same rates as those of their contemporaries in 1964
o That the backwages to be paid be increased from 3 years to 5.5 years

Issue and Holding:


1) Whether Liberty Cotton Mills should be held liable with PAFLU for the
backwages. Yes. Liberty Cotton Mills is solidarily liable. The other reliefs
sought do not merit consideration.
Ratio:
Respondent company is equally liable for the payment of backwages for having
acted in bad faith in effecting the dismissal of the individual petitioners. Bad faith on
the part of the respondent company may be gleaned from the fact that the
petitioner workers were dismissed hastily and summarily.
While respondent company, under the Maintenance of Membership provision of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, is bound to dismiss any employee expelled by
PAFLU for disloyalty, upon its written request, this undertaking should not be done
hastily and summarily.
The company acted in bad faith in dismissing petitioner workers without giving
them the benefit of a hearing. It did not even bother to inquire from the workers
concerned and from PAFLU itself about the cause of the expulsion of the petitioner
workers.
Instead, the company immediately dismiss the workers on May 30, 1964 after its
receipt of the request of PAFLU on May 29, 1964 in a span of only one day
stating that it had no alternative but to comply with its obligation under the Security

Agreement in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, thereby disregarding the right


of the workers to due process, self-organization and security of tenure.