G.R. No. L-23960 and L-23961, February 26, 1968
DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU, petitioner, vs. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (Formerly YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC.) and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Diwa ng Pagkakaisa-PAFLU filed a motion to cite respondent Filtex International Corporation for contempt of court. The motion alleged that Filtex refused to obey the Supreme Court’s order dated October 20, 1967, which directed Filtex to reinstate, pending appeal, the striking union members who were not found responsible for the strike by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The reinstatement was to be effected within thirty (30) days from notice of the order, which was received on October 25, 1967, making the deadline November 24, 1967. Filtex, in its opposition, claimed it faced a dilemma: obeying the order would require terminating current employees who replaced the strikers, potentially violating labor laws on termination notice and exposing the company to lawsuits. Filtex also asserted it had already reinstated 52 strikers prior to the Court’s order, 41 of whom were later dismissed for cause, while the rest failed to present themselves for reinstatement. Petitioner countered that this claim of prior reinstatement contradicted Filtex’s earlier position and that any subsequent dismissal of reinstated strikers would constitute an unfair labor practice.

ISSUE

Whether Filtex International Corporation’s refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s reinstatement order is justified, thereby warranting a finding of contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Filtex guilty of contempt. The Court held that Filtex’s fear of violating labor laws by dismissing replacement workers was untenable. Dismissal of replacements due to a court order for reinstatement of strikers is legal, as the replacements were hired pending the outcome of the labor dispute and subject to such orders. The replacement workers are deemed to have accepted employment with knowledge of the dispute’s potential consequences. Furthermore, Filtex could have complied by paying one month’s salary to the replacements or providing one-month notice in lieu of salary, as allowed under separation pay laws, especially since the Court’s order gave a one-month period for compliance. Filtex’s claim of prior reinstatement of 52 strikers was unproven and inconsistent with its earlier stance. The Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) on Filtex, ordered immediate reinstatement of the laborers, and imposed a penalty of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) for each day of delay, requiring a compliance report within ten (10) days.