Case Digest (G.R. No. 163505)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 163505)
Facts:
Gualberto Aguanza v. Asian Terminal, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 163505, August 14, 2009, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gualberto Aguanza was employed by respondent Asian Terminal, Inc. (ATI) as a derrickman/crane operator aboard the floating crane barge Bismark IV, initially based at the Port of Manila. By October 1997 his compensation included a basic salary (P8,303.30), a P1,800 monthly meal allowance, a fixed 16 hours overtime when the barge was assigned outside Metro Manila, and a per diem out-of-port allowance (P260/day).
In September 1997 Bismark IV and its crew were temporarily assigned to the Mariveles Grains Terminal in Mariveles, Bataan. By memorandum dated October 20, 1997 respondent James Keith advised the crew that the barge had been permanently transferred to Mariveles effective October 1, 1997, and that crew members would no longer be entitled to the prior out-of-port benefits (the fixed 16-hour overtime and the daily allowance). ATI contemporaneously offered new terms for work based in Mariveles: a regular 40-hour workweek (Monday–Friday), overtime paid in excess of 8 hours/day and on weekends, but "no additional allowance" and "no transportation."
Most crew members accepted the transfer on those terms; Aguanza did not. Although he stated he did not object to assignment to Mariveles so long as there was no diminution of his then-existing benefits, he reported to Manila and was not given work assignments there; he also wrote ATI for clarification and asserted willingness to work either in Manila or Bataan but without prejudice to his claims. ATI declined to allow him to time in Manila, and after being shuttled between the two ports and not being paid, Aguanza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated September 28, 1998, found that Aguanza had been illegally dismissed, ordered his immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority, payment of full backwages and benefits from November 1997 until reinstatement, conversion of unused leave credits, and moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys' fees. Respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on May 5, 1999.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), adopting the recommending arbiter’s findings, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed Aguanza’s complaint in a decision promulgated February 11, 2002, concluding that the insistence on out-of-town benefits after the barge was permanently based outside Metro Manila was unreasonable. The NLRC denied Aguanza’s motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2002.
Aguanza then petitioned the Court of Appeals by Rule 45 petition for certiorari; the Court of Appeals (penal by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar‑Fernando) denied the petition in a decision promulgated January 9, 2004 and denied his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution promulgated May 5, 2004, holding the contested allowances were conditional supplements, not part of basic pay, and that ATI validly exercised its management prerogative in transferring Bismark IV’s base to Bataan. Aguanza filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was the alleged insufficiency of the supersedeas bond in respondents’ appeal to the NLRC a jurisdictional defect that rendered the NLRC’s decision voidable instead of waivable?
- Did ATI’s transfer of *Bismark IV*’s base from Manila to Mariveles, Bataan, and the concomitant change in benefits, constitute constructive dismissal or an unlawful diminution of Aguanza’s wages?
- Was Aguanza entitled to cash conversion of vacation and sick leave credits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees as awarded by the Labor Arbiter?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)