Facts:

This case involves a petition for review filed by Asian Terminals, Inc. (formerly Marina Port Services, Inc.) against respondents Renato P. Villanueva, Rolando T. Rodolfo, Alfredo L. Lanza, and Brendo S. Poquiz concerning their termination and subsequent reinstatement. The respondents were employees of Marina Port Services, Inc. and members of the Associated Workers Union of the Philippines (AWU). On June 9, 1993, the AWU sought their dismissal, citing their expulsion from the union. The following day, MPSI issued a termination memorandum, effective immediately, under the closed-shop provision of their collective bargaining agreement. Respondents subsequently filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On December 27, 1995, Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring their termination illegal and ordering their reinstatement with bac

...

Facts:

Background and Procedural History

• This case is a petition for review of the decisions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals concerning the illegal dismissal and subsequent reinstatement of respondents.
• Respondents—Renato P. Villanueva, Rolando T. Rodolfo, Alfredo L. Lanza, and Brendo S. Poquiz—were employees of Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPSI), later known as Asian Terminals, Inc., and members of the Associated Workers Union of the Philippines (AWU).

Dismissal and Initial Proceedings

• On 9 June 1993, the AWU president sent a letter to MPSI requesting the dismissal of certain employees (the respondents) who had been expelled from the union.
• Subsequently, on 11 June 1993, MPSI issued a memorandum terminating the services of the respondents effective immediately pursuant to the closed-shop provision of the MPSI-AWU Collective Bargaining Agreement.
• The respondents filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decisions

• On 27 December 1995, Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol ruled the terminations illegal, ordered the reinstatement of the respondents to their former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority, and directed the payment of backwages from the time of dismissal.
• The NLRC subsequently affirmed this decision on 26 August 1996, rendering it final and executory.
• On 7 February 1996, following a partial writ of execution issued by Labor Arbiter Dinopol, MPSI reinstated the respondents on 26 February 1996 to the following positions:
• Alfredo L. Lanza – CRE-120
• Rolando T. Rodolfo – CRE-370
• Renato P. Villanueva – CRE-412
• Brendo S. Poquiz – DWV-112

Dispute Over Reinstatement and Subsequent Motions

• Respondents later alleged that MPSI did not reinstate them to their former positions or to positions substantially equivalent to their pre-dismissal posts.
• Specific issues raised included:
• Claims by Lanza, Rodolfo, and Villanueva that they were deliverymen at the time of dismissal and should have been reinstated to that designation rather than as casual rotation employees.
• Brendo S. Poquiz contended that his former position, claimed to be that of a day worker vessel (DWV), was not restored since another employee had already occupied that post.
• Movements before the NLRC and subsequent labor arbitration led to conflicting awards:
• Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac granted additional backwages only for Poquiz while upholding the reinstatement of the other three respondents.
• The NLRC later modified Bartolabac’s order by deleting the award of additional backwages for Poquiz, finding that the positions had been reclassified and that reinstatement to substantially equivalent positions had been satisfied.
• The dispute eventually reached the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari.

Court of Appeals Decision and Issues Raised

• On 17 February 2000, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC decision for grave abuse of discretion and ordering MPSI (Asian Terminals, Inc.) to reinstate the respondents to positions substantially equivalent to their previous ones with full backwages and without loss of seniority or privileges.
• The procedural posture involved the interplay of decisions from the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the appellate review by the Court of Appeals regarding the reinstatement issue.

Issue:

Core Issue

• Whether MPSI reinstated the respondents to their former positions or to positions that are substantially equivalent.

Sub-Issues

• The interpretation of reinstatement under labor law – specifically, whether reinstatement necessarily implies restoration to the exact pre-dismissal position or to an equivalent one when the former is no longer available.
• The role of evidentiary findings by labor officials regarding the position classification and reclassification (for instance, the designation of employees as casual rotation employees versus deliverymen or day worker vessels).

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)