Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961. February 26, 1968.]

DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU, Petitioner, v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (Formerly YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC.) and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Gregorio E. Fajardo for Petitioner.

Herras Law Office for respondent Corporation.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTEMPT OF COURT; REFUSAL TO OBEY COURT’S ORDER DUE TO GROUNDLESS FEARS OF VIOLATING LABOR LAWS. — Filtex’s admitted failure and refusal to obey this Court’s order 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, due to its groundless fears of violating labor laws, constitutes contempt of court.

2. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE: DISMISSAL OF STRIKERS’ REPLACEMENT DUE TO REINSTATEMENT OF STRIKERS, ALLOWABLE. — Dismissal of strikers’ replacements, due to court’s reinstatement order of strikers, is legal, as their hiring was subject to the outcome of the present suit or subject to the herein order. Said 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.


R E S O L U T I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


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’s 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). Within extension given, 1 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 taken 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 are 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 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, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 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.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA