ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2006 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6266 - ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

  • A.C. No. 7123 - MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 7214 - AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO, JR.

  • A.C. No. 6266 - ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

  • A.C. No. 7123 - MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 7214 - AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO, JR.

  • A.C. No. 6266 - ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

  • A.C. No. 7123 - MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 7214 - AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO, JR.

  • Adm. Case No. 7252 - CBD 05-1434 - JOHNNY NG vs ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR

  • A.C. No. 7280 - DAHLIA S. GACIAS vs ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN

  • A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY

  • A.M. No. 2004-15-SC - PROSECUTOR AGAPITO B. ROSALES vs ENGR. CELERINO BUENAVENTURA

  • A.M. No. 2005-26-SC - RE: LOST CHECKS ISSUED TO THE LATE RODERICK ROY P. MELLIZA, ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1503 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1660 - Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI 04-1519-MTJ - SPOUSES TREFIL AND LINA A. UMALE vs JUDGE NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1731 - PNB MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs CARMELO CACHERO

  • A.M. No. P-03-1737 - Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1250-P - NICOLAS PACLIBAR vs RENAN V. PAMPOSA

  • A.M. No. P-05-2092 - ATTY. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR. vs MILA AMANTE-CASICAS

  • A.M. No. P-05-1979 - JUDGE LEONARDO P. CARREON vs ERIC ANTHONY S. ORTEGA

  • A.M. No. P-06-2109 - LIGAYA V. REYES vs MARIO PABLICO

  • A.M. No. P-06-2204 - NYDIA S. SERVINO vs MA. MAWILYNN CONCEPCION B. ADOLFO

  • A.M. No. P-06-2266 - ENCARNACION FLORES vs ROMEO S. GATCHECO, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2257 - SPS. ARTHUR and LEONORA STILGROVE vs ERIBERTO R. SABAS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2268 - BIENVENIDO L. PUNZALAN vs RUMEL M. MACALISANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1901 - FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE, COMPANY, INC. vs JUDGE JIMMY H. F. LUCZON, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-06-2002 - ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. vs JUDGE MARIANO M. SINGZON, JR.

  • G.R. No. 74269 & 92137 - SOLID HOMES, INC., ET AL. vs HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127636 - E. ROMMEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs STA. LUCIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 126890 - UNITED PLANTERS SUGAR MILLING COMPANY, INC. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129820 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs EMILIANO G. VENERACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 132834 - RUPERTO LUCERO, JR., ET AL. vs CITY GOVERNMENT OF PASIG

  • G.R. No. 135817 - REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. vs CONCORDIA ONG LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 140371-72 - DY YIENG SEANGIO, ET AL. vs AMOR A. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140833 - LACEPI T. MAGNANAO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 141480 - CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN vs TOYOTA CUBAO, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142351 - ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOMES vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143219 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. vs RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143382 - SECURITY BANK and TRUST COMPANY vs MAR TIERRA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144062 - THE BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL. vs ELPIDIO UY

  • G.R. No. 146707 - ERNESTO DUMLAO, JR., ET AL. vs RODOLFO PONFERRADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148090 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs NEMESIO S. FELIX, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148490 - 7K CORPORATION vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 148500-01 - TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 148839-40 - NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA PICOP RESOURCES, INC. - SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR (NAMAPRI - SPFL), ET AL. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148971 - ALBERTO GARONG vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 149633 - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GABRIEL S. CASAL, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 149748 - JANG LIM, ET AL vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149753 - Miguel Cosme, Jr. v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. NO. 149764 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION vs ENRIQUE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150253 - DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION, INC. vs ANTONIO G. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150402 - EPARWA SECURITY AND JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC. vs LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY

  • G.R. No. 152258 - ROGELIO P. ANTALAN vs ANIANO DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 152984 - WILLIAM G. KWONG vs ATTY. RAMON GARGANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 154006 - STAR PAPER CORPORATION vs CARLITO ESPIRI TU, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 154565 - REMEDIOS RAMOS vs TESSIE PABAS

  • G.R. No. 154685 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, ET AL. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155645 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. vs MAYFLOR T. YLAGAN

  • G.R. No. 155574 - TIMOTEO A. GARCIA vs SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 156294 - MELVA THERESA ALVIAR GONZALES vs RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION

  • G. R. No. 156888 - PEDRO R. SANTIAGO vs SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. 156903 - SPOUSES CARLOS and TERESITA RUSTIA vs EMERITA RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 157107 - ALPINE LENDING INVESTORS, ET AL. vs ESTRELLA CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 157117 - COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 157236-45 - ROMEO D. LONZANIDA vs SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 157906 - JOAQUINITA P. CAPILI vs SPS. DOMINADOR CARDAÑA and ROSALITA CARDAÑA,

  • G.R. No. 158676 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. vs SPS. ZENAIDA DOMINGO & ABUNDIO S. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158707 - COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO (N.E.), INC. vs YSAGANI V. PAEZ

  • G.R. NOS. 157294-95 - JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO vs SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158960 - LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO vs F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY

  • G.R. No. 159373 - JOSE R. MORENO, JR. vs PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

  • G.R. No. 159991 - CARMELINO F. PANSACOLA vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 159734 and G.R. NO. 159745 - ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 160347 - ARCADIO and MARIA LUISA CARANDANG vs HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160618 - DENNIS D. SY vs METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 160805 - SPOUSES ADIEL DE LA CENA and CARIDAD AREVALO DE LA CENA vs SPOUSES JOSE BRIONES and HERMINIA LLEDO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 161086 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 161136 - WILFREDO VAGILIDAD, ET AL. vs GABINO VAGILIDAD, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161115 - DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs MEDEL ESTEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162037 - Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Elinor A. Virata

  • G.R. No. 162243, G.R. No. 164516 & G.R. No. 171875 - HEHERSON ALVAREZ vs PICOP RESOURCES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 162308 - G & M PHILIPPINES, INC. vs ROMIL V. CUAMBOT

  • G.R. No. 162331 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. vs WMC RESOURCES INT L. PTY. LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162366 - FEDERICA M. SERRANO, ET AL. vs SPOUSES ANSELMO GUTIERREZ AND CARMELITA GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 163735 - GREEN ASIA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163712 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ET AL. vs JOSE B. TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163763 - MALAYAN REALTY, INC. vs UY HAN YONG

  • G.R. No. 164300 - SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND AGRIFINA SIM vs M.B. FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 164321 - SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC. vs INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164545 - LORBE REBUCAN y BALTAZAR vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 165038 - HEIRS OF EMILIO R. DOMINGO AND FELICIDAD CORNEJO, ET AL. vs THE HEIRS OF CLARITA D. MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164858 - HENRY P. LANOT vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 165724 - ZAMORA REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165879 - MARIA B. CHING vs JOSEPH C. GOYANKO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166403 - BENZON O. ALDEMITA vs HEIRS OF MELQUIADES SILVA

  • G.R. NOS. 166143-47 and G.R. NO. 166891 - ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, ET AL. vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166496 - JOSEFA BAUTISTA FERRER vs SPS. MANUEL M. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166501 - ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs HON. BAYANI F. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 166649 - ROBERT B. CABUYOC vs INTER-ORIENT NAVIGATION SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166833 - FELIXBERTO CUBERO, ET AL. vs LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166837 - LIGAYA S. ORBETA vs RUBEN P. ORBETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167680 - SAMUEL PARILLA, ET AL. vs DR. PROSPERO PILAR

  • G.R. No. 167723 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. vs ROMEO ARAULLO

  • G.R. No. 167743 - HILARIO P. SORIANO vs OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167844 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168035 - MELANIE M. MESINA, ET AL. vs GLORIA C. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 168718 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs FARIDA T. LUCERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168694 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SAIDAMIN MACABALANG y MALAMAMA

  • G.R. No. 169193 - SPOUSES ILUMINADA CAPITLE and CIRILO CAPITLE vs FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 169295-96 - REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION vs ERLINDA CASTANEDA

  • G.R. No. 169341 - City of Cebu v. Vicente B. Del Rosario

  • G.R. No. 169578 - TERESITA DIO vs ST. FERDINAND MEMORIAL PARK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169698 - LUPO ATIENZA vs YOLANDA DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 169891 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS vs ETHEL BRUNTY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170220 - JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, ET AL. vs LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 170522 - CELSO LOPEZ OCATE vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170829 - Perla G. Patricio v. Marcelino G. Dario III, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171102 - ATP TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs MICRON PRECISION PHILS., INC.

  • G.R. No. 170840 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs GREGORIO CARPIO @ "GORIO"

  • G.R. No. 171144 - SANTOS L. NACAYTUNA vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. NOS. 171322-24 - MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 172274 - ROMEO D. CABARLO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G. R. No. 171447 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FEDERICO ARNAIZ y ARMONIO

  • G.R. No. 173290 - ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA vs JUDGE RALPH S. LEE, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 143219 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC.  vs  RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

      G.R. No. 143219 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. vs RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 143219 : November 28, 2006]

    ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., formerly MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ROLANDO T. RODOLFO, ALFREDO L. LANZA, and BRENDO S. POQUIZ, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    CARPIO, J.:

    The Case

    This is a Petition for Review 1 of the 17 February 2000 Decision2 and the 5 May 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51086. The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and ordered the reinstatement of respondents Renato P. Villanueva, Rolando T. Rodolfo,3 Alfredo L. Lanza, and Brendo S. Poquiz ("respondents") to positions substantially equivalent to their previous positions without loss of seniority rights, other privileges and benefits, and full backwages.

    The Facts

    Respondents were employees of Marina Port Services, Inc.4 (MPSI) and members of the Associated Workers Union of the Philippines (AWU).

    In a letter5 dated 9 June 1993 to MPSI, the AWU president sought the dismissal from service of respondents who were expelled from AWU. On 11 June 1993, the MPSI issued a memorandum to respondents terminating them effective immediately pursuant to the closed-shop provision of the MPSI-AWU Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    Respondents filed a complaint6 for constructive illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.

    On 27 December 1995, Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol ("Labor Arbiter Dinopol") rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring illegal the termination of complainants Renato P. Villanueva, Rolando T. Rodolfo, Brendo S. Poquiz and Alfredo Lanza, and ordering respondent Marina Port Services, Inc. to reinstate them to their former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and ordering both respondents Associated Workers Union of the Philippines (AWU) and Marina Port Services, Inc. to jointly and severally pay them their backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal on June 11, 1993 up to the time of their reinstatement which, computed as of today, amounts to:

    Renato P. Villanueva
    (P130x26x29.5 mos.)
    P 99,710.00
    Rolando T. Rodolfo 99,710.00
    Alfredo Lanza 99,710.00
    Brendo S. Poquiz
    (P3,800x29.5 mos.)
    112,100.00
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    P 411,230.00

    plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees since complainants had to engage the services of counsel to prosecute this case for the protection of their rights and interests.

    All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.7

    On 26 August 1996, the NLRC affirmed the decision which became final and executory.

    Meanwhile, Labor Arbiter Dinopol issued a partial writ of execution on 7 February 1996.8 Pursuant thereto, MPSI reinstated respondents on 26 February 1996 to the following positions:

    1. Alfredo L. Lanza - CRE-1209

    2. Rolando T. Rodolfo - CRE-37010

    3. Renato P. Villanueva - CRE-41211

    4. Brendo S. Poquiz - DWV-11212

    However, respondents alleged that MPSI did not reinstate them to their former positions or to equivalent positions. Respondents Alfredo L. Lanza, Rolando T. Rodolfo, and Renato P. Villanueva alleged that they were deliverymen at the time of their dismissal and not CRE or casual rotation employee. For his part, respondent Brendo S. Poquiz alleged that a certain Salvador Refruto had already occupied his former position. Respondents filed a motion13 for contempt against AWU and MPSI for non-compliance with the partial writ of execution.14 Respondents also prayed for additional backwages because they were allegedly not reinstated to their former positions or to equivalent positions.

    On 28 August 1997, Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac ("Labor Arbiter Bartolabac") issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered denying backwages to complainants Lanza, Rodolfo and Villanueva.

    Be that as it may, respondent Marina Port Services, Inc. (Now Asian Terminals, Inc.) is ordered to admit Lanza, Rodolfo and Villanueva back to work.

    Moreover, respondent Marina Port Services, Inc. (Now Asian Terminals, Inc.) is ordered to reinstate and pay complainant Brendo Poquiz his backwages, computed as of even date as follows:

    P3,800 x 20 mos. = P76,000.00

    SO ORDERED.15

    Labor Arbiter Bartolabac held that it was proper for MPSI to reinstate respondents Alfredo L. Lanza, Rolando T. Rodolfo, and Renato P. Villanueva to their former positions as CRE-120, CRE-370 and CRE-412, respectively. However, Labor Arbiter Bartolabac found that on respondent Brendo S. Poquiz, MPSI failed to prove that his position was still available or that MPSI offered him a substantially equivalent position. Thus, Labor Arbiter Bartolabac granted additional backwages to respondent Brendo S. Poquiz but denied the same to respondents Alfredo L. Lanza, Rolando T. Rodolfo, and Renato P. Villanueva.

    MPSI appealed Labor Arbiter Bartolabac's Order to the NLRC. On 30 January 1998, the NLRC modified the order of Labor Arbiter Bartolabac by deleting the award of additional backwages in favor of respondent Brendo S. Poquiz.16

    The NLRC held that MPSI had reclassified the positions of deliveryman and day worker vessel as casual rotation employee (CRE) and dockworker vessel (DWV), respectively. The NLRC upheld the MPSI management's prerogative of streamlining its organizational set-up which resulted in the reclassification of positions. Thus, the NLRC ruled that MPSI had properly reinstated respondents to substantially equivalent positions and that respondents are no longer entitled to the award of additional backwages.

    Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On 17 February 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed NLRC decision, having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, is SET ASIDE. Respondent Asian Terminals, Inc. is ordered to reinstate the above named petitioners to positions substantially equivalent to their previous positions without loss of seniority rights, other privileges and benefits, and full backwages. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.17

    Hence, this petition.

    The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

    The Court of Appeals held that at the time of respondents' illegal dismissal, respondents were already regular employees considering their

    length of service in the MPSI. Citing Article 28018 of the Labor Code, the Court of Appeals held that as long as the employee has rendered at least one year of service, he becomes a regular employee for the activity in which he is employed. Thus, if the positions previously held by respondents have already been abolished, then respondents should be reinstated to substantially equivalent positions.

    The Issue

    The sole issue for resolution is whether MPSI reinstated respondents to their former or equivalent positions.

    The Ruling of the Court

    We find the petition meritorious.

    In this case, the decision dated 27 December 1995 of Labor Arbiter Dinopol ordered the reinstatement of respondents to their former or equivalent positions and the payment of backwages to respondents from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the time of their reinstatement. The NLRC affirmed the decision which became final and executory. The present controversy arose when respondents filed motions and prayed for additional backwages, alleging that MPSI did not reinstate them to their former or equivalent positions.

    Reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated.19 The person reinstated assumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal.20 Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially equivalent or of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the employee.21

    MPSI asserts that it reinstated respondents to their former positions. According to MPSI, respondents were regular employees and that their designation as casual rotation employees merely meant that they work on rotation.

    The NLRC found that MPSI indeed reinstated respondents to their former positions or to substantially equivalent positions. The records of the case support this finding. Factual findings of labor officials, who possess the expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded great weight if substantial evidence support the findings.22

    MPSI reinstated respondents on 26 February 1996 to the following positions:

    1. Alfredo L. Lanza - CRE-120

    2. Rolando T. Rodolfo - CRE-370

    3. Renato P. Villanueva - CRE-412

    4. Brendo S. Poquiz - DWV-112

    These were the positions occupied by respondents before MPSI dismissed them, as evinced in the letter dated 9 June 1993 of the AWU president to MPSI:

    June 9, 1993

    Marina Port Services, Inc.
    South Harbor, Manila

    Attn.: Mr. Richard Barclay
    Executive Vice-Pres.

    Gentlemen:

    After a careful and thorough investigation has been conducted, the following members, namely:

    1. Alfredo L. Lanza - CRE-120

    2. Rolando T. Rodolfo - CRE-370

    3. Renato P. Villanueva - CRE-412

    4. Brendo S. Poquiz - DWV-112

    were expelled from the roster of membership of the organization. They were found guilty of committing inimical acts against the union and therefore has openly violated Sec. 3 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g), Art. X of the union's Constitution and By-Laws.

    Because of the failure of the above-named members to retain and maintain their membership in good standing for the duration of their employment and as a condition for continued security of tenure pursuant to the express provision of our existing CBA, we demand that they be dismissed from the service.

    Hereto attached is a membership resolution calling for their expulsion duly signed by the overwhelming members of our organization.

    Very truly yours,

    (signed)
    ROBERTO M. OCA, JR.
    President23

    Likewise, these were the very same positions stated in the memorandum dated 11 June 1993, terminating the services of respondents:

    11 June 1993

    MEMORANDUM

    TO : ALL CONCERNED

    FR : VP-ADMIN.

    SUBJ : TERMINATION OF SERVICES PURSUANT

    TO THE CBA CLOSED SHOP PROVISION

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Pursuant to the "closed-shop" provision of the existing MPSI-AWU CBA particularly Section 1 Article IV and Section 4 Article XXI thereof the following personnel named hereunder on account of their expulsion from the union and their failure to remain members in good standing as a condition for continued employment are hereby terminated from the service EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY to wit:

    1. ALFREDO L. LANZA
    CRE - 120

    2. ROLANDO T. RODULFO
    CRE - 370

    3. RENATO P. VILLANUEVA
    CRE - 412

    4. BRENDO S. POQUIZ
    DWV - 112

    (signed)
    ATTY. R. G. CORVITE, JR.
    VP for Administration24

    On the other hand, respondents maintain that MPSI did not reinstate them to their former permanent and regular positions.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    Respondents Alfredo L. Lanza, Rolando T. Rodolfo, and Renato P. Villanueva allege that they should be reinstated to their former position as deliverymen while respondent Brendo S. Poquiz insists on reinstatement to his former position as day worker vessel (DWV).

    Respondents Rolando T. Rodolfo and Renato P. Villanueva submitted evidence showing their appointment to the position of reserved deliveryman.25 Even their MPSI identification cards, which were both validated only for the year 1981, indicated their position as reserved deliveryman. There is no evidence showing that the position of deliveryman is the same as reserved deliveryman. Furthermore, respondents Alfredo L. Lanza, Rolando T. Rodolfo, and Renato P. Villanueva failed to prove that they were already occupying the position of deliveryman at the time of their dismissal. For his part, respondent Brendo S. Poquiz did not present any evidence showing that his position prior to his dismissal was day worker vessel. Respondent Brendo S. Poquiz's AWU identification card indicated his position merely as DWV-112, the same position to which he was reinstated.

    In their 4 March 1998 Supplement26 filed with the NLRC, respondents allege that MPSI should reinstate them to positions equivalent to those currently occupied by their co-employees who previously held the same position as respondents before their dismissal. Respondents submitted evidence showing that MPSI had already promoted these co-employees to higher positions.27

    Reinstatement means restoration to the former position occupied prior to dismissal or to substantially equivalent position. Reinstatement does not mean promotion. Promotion is based primarily on an employee's performance during a certain period. Just because their contemporaries are already occupying higher positions does not automatically entitle respondents to similar positions.

    WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.We SET ASIDE the 17 February 2000 Decision and the 5 May 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51086. We REINSTATE the 30 January 1998 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.

    SO ORDERED.

    Endnotes:


    1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

    2 Penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., concurring.

    3 Also spelled as Rodulfo in some pleadings.

    4 Now Asian Terminals, Inc.

    5 Rollo, pp. 53-54.

    6 Id. at 60-62.

    7 Id. at 73-74.

    8 Id. at 90-91.

    9 Id. at 56.

    10 Id. at 57.

    11 Id. at 58.

    12 Id. at 59.

    13 Id. at 92-94.

    14 Labor Arbiter Dinopol denied the motion for contempt, ruling that there was substantial compliance with the writ and that the issue of whether respondents were reinstated to their former positions can only be resolved by the NLRC where the case was on appeal. Id. at 101-103.

    15 CA rollo, p. 44.

    16 Rollo, pp. 44-52.

    17 Id. at 37.

    18 Article 280 of the Labor Code reads:

    ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

    An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.

    19 Viernes v. NLRC, 448 Phil. 690 (2003).

    20 Judy Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 352 Phil. 593 (1998).

    21 Philippine Engineering Corp. v. CIR, 148-B Phil. 577 (1971).

    22 Philippine Military Veterans Security and Investigation Agency v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139159, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 177.

    23 Rollo, pp. 53-54.

    24 Id. at 55.

    25 Id. at 120-122, 126-129.

    26 Id. at 118-119.

    27 Id. at 121, 123-124, 130.

    G.R. No. 143219 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC.  vs  RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED