G.R. No. 102232 - Aldovino vs. Alu III

A number of employees of the then Ministry of Tourism (now Department of Tourism, DOT) were affected by the issuance of Executive Order No. 120, which reorganized the ministry and declared that incumbents whose positions were not included in the new staffing pattern or who were not reappointed were deemed separated from the service.
Following the EO, various office orders and memoranda were issued declaring positions vacant, resulting in the separation of many employees. These actions triggered previous cases such as Mandani v. Gonzales, Abrogar v. Garrucho, and Arnaldo v. Garrucho.

Petitioners and intervenors sought reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and back wages computed under the new staffing pattern from the date of their alleged illegal terminations, at rates not lower than their former salaries, though limited to a period of five years.
Their arguments emphasized that the void office orders and memoranda, as declared in Mandani and the consolidated cases, rendered their separation null and void; hence, they should never have lost their employment status.

Petitioners asserted that—even after their dismissal—they actively protested their separation by filing complaints with the Department of Labor and Employment and the Civil Service Commission, joining pickets and demonstrations, and making representations directly to the DOT for reinstatement and back wages.
Public respondents acknowledged the separations but argued that the petitioners and intervenors had either failed to exhaust administrative remedies or delayed their filing by more than four years, thus invoking the doctrines of laches and prescription.
Specific allegations and evidence (e.g., appointment papers, termination orders, and letters/demonstrations) were submitted, detailing the plight of the terminated employees and contesting the procedural defenses raised by the respondents.

Whether the separation of the employees was executed pursuant to office orders and memoranda that were later declared null and void in Mandani and the consolidated cases.
The determination of whether these actions amounted to an unconstitutional dismissal.

Whether petitioners and intervenors are entitled to be reinstated to their former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights.
Whether back wages should be computed under the new staffing pattern from the dates of their invalid dismissals and, if so, for a period not exceeding five years.

Whether the fact that the petition was filed several years after the alleged illegal dismissals (with certain interventions filed even later) renders the claims time-barred by either prescription or laches.
Whether the actions of the petitioners (such as protesting their termination and seeking remedies through administrative channels) are sufficient to overcome the defense of delay.

Whether granting reinstatement would materially disrupt the current organizational structure of the DOT.
Whether the need to remedy an unconstitutional dismissal outweighs potential administrative inconveniences.

The question of whether the non-appearance of certain petitioners’ names in the official plantilla conclusively proves non-employment.
The validity of claims for those employees allegedly appointed on a casual or temporary basis.