DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU, PETITIONER, VS. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPO­RATION (FORMERLY YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC.) AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner, Diwa ng
Pagkakaisa-PAFLU, on January 8, 1968, filed a sworn motion to cite respondent Filtex In­ternational Corporation or its General Manager,
for con­tempt of court.  Alleged by movant is that said respondent has refused to obey this
Court is order of October 20, 1967 for it to reinstate, pending appeal, the
strikers-members of petitioner union not found by the Court of Industrial
Relations in its decision as responsible for the strike, said reinstatement to
be made within thirty (30) days from notice of the
order.  Said notice took place on October 25, 1967, thereby giving the
respondent corporation until No­vember
24, 1967 to reinstate the strikers in question.  Respondent’s counsel was furnished with copy
of the pre­sent motion for contempt.

Acting thereon, We required Filtex, on January
15, 1968, to comment in ten days from notice, on petitioner’s
motion for contempt.  Said notice was
received by counsel for respondent on January
18, 1968 (Rollo, p. 179).  With in extension given,*
Filtex filed on February 12, 1968, its opposition to the motion to cite
respondent for contempt.

Said opposition set up, inter alia,
the following defense:  Respondent
corporation was in a dilemma, upon receipt of this Court’s reinstatement order,
on whether to terminate the services of the employees at present oc­cupying the
positions formerly held by petitioner’s mem­bers or to obey this Court’s
resolution; that for it to dismiss immediately or separate said present
employees would be to violate our labor laws, particularly that on giving of
notice of termination of service, and to expose itself to the danger of being
sued in court by said em­ployees; that considering the number of employees
involved, it took respondent Filtex time to ascertain
the actual status and other circumstances of the employees affected, digging
into files and records of new and old employees; that it already notified its
employees formerly holding positions occupied by petitioner’s members with a
view to reinstating some of the latter in compliance with, this Court’s order,
but the present employees manifested their unwillingness to being terminated or
replaced; that Filtex in fact had filed a
manifestation dated January 24, 1968 regarding the foregoing.  Said manifestation stated that 52 of the
strikers had been reinstated long before this Court’s order for reinstatement;
that of these, 41 had been subsequently dismissed for cause; and that the rest
had failed to present themselves for
reinstatement.  Pe­titioner, however,
commented on said manifestation, stat­ing that the alleged reinstatement of 52
strikers long before this Court’s reinstatement order is contrary to
respondent’s previous stand that none of them had been reinstated before that
time; that dismissal of 41 strik­ers reinstated, if true, would be clearly an
unfair labor practice; and that respondent has not shown that it has given
notice to the strikers to return to work within a given period or lose their
jobs.

The present Incident was thereupon heard by Us,
on February 22, 1968, after
notice to the parties, who ap­peared and adduced their respective
arguments.  Filtex
clearly and admittedly failed and refused to carry out this Court’s order to
reinstate the strikers in question, with­in thirty days from notice.  As pointed out by petitioner’s comment to its
manifestation, it did not reinstate or even offer to reinstate any striker
pursuant to this Court’s order, but claimed having reinstated 52 of them long
be­fore the order was issued.  Said
previous reinstatement is not proved and goes counter to the stand hitherto
take by Filtex that it had precisely refused to
reinstate the strikers before said time.

The point then to resolve is whether Filtex’s
refusal to abide by Our resolution is justified.  The alleged fear of violating labor laws,
specifically the separation pay law, and of being exposed to suit, is
untenable.  Dismissal of present
employees taken as strikers’ replacements, due to court order for the reinstatement
of strikers, is not only legal but also envisioned by both the company and the
pre­sent employees when they were hired pending the outcome of the present suit
or subject to any order herein. Said other workers must be deemed to have
accepted their employment as replacements with the knowledge that the same is
subject to the consequences of the labor dispute bet­ween the strikers and the
company.  (Norton &
Harrison Co., etc., Labor Union v. Norton & Harrison Co., L-18461, Feb. 10,
1967.)  Accordingly, We find, no valid reason for Fil­tex
to have refused to obey this Court’s order until now.

Moreover, Filtex could have paid one
month salary to the substitute employees, if it really was bent on comply­ing
with labor laws.  Not only that, but it
could have given one-month notice to them, in lieu of one-month sala­ry, under
the separation pay law, considering that this Court’s resolution of October 20,
1967 gave it one month to effect reinstatement.

WHEREFORE, respondent Filtex
International Corporation is hereby found guilty of contempt of this Court in
having disobeyed this Court’s resolution of October 20, 1967 requiring it to
reinstate the strikers-member of petitioner union, not found responsible for
the strike in the CIR decision, during the pendency of this appeal, and is
hereby fined in the sum of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
pesos.  Filtex
tax is hereby further ordered to reinstate immediately upon receipt of this
resolution the laborers, to pay a penalty of P100.00 for every day of delay,
and submit to this Court a written report of the compliance of this resolution,
within ten (10) days from notice thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

* Filtex filed on January 26, 1968 motion for extension of 15
days from January 28, 1968 which was granted by resolution of February 1, 1968.