FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between petitioners, who were former members of the Sicaltek Employees Union-ADFLO (SEU-ADFLO), and respondent Sicaltek Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners had filed a complaint for various labor violations, including illegal lay-off and non-payment of benefits. During the certification proceedings for the union, SEU-ADFLO and Sicaltek reached an agreement wherein SEU-ADFLO would withdraw the labor case in exchange for voluntary recognition as the sole bargaining agent. However, the petitioners refused to sign the motion to dismiss the labor case, leading to their disaffiliation from SEU-ADFLO and the formation of a new union called Sicaltek Workers Union (SWU). SWU's petition for certification election was dismissed due to the previous certification order. SEU-ADFLO demanded the dismissal of the petitioners in accordance with the Modified Union Shop Provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), citing disloyalty and falsification. The dismissal led to the filing of a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint but it was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which ordered the petitioners' reinstatement without backwages. Both the petitioners and the respondents filed separate petitions with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the consolidated petitions for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals ruled that the petitioners were not covered by the Modified Union Shop provision in the CBA and that their dismissal was not attended by bad faith. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were entitled to backwages. The Supreme Court granted the appeal, ruling that the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to full backwages and other allowances from the time of their dismissal until they are actually reinstated. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the full backwages.

ISSUES:

1. • Are petitioners entitled to backwages?

RULING:

1. • Yes, the petitioners are entitled to full backwages and other allowances, without qualifications and diminutions, computed from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the time they are actually reinstated.