Facts:

Alexander B. BaAares, the petitioner, was previously employed as the general manager of Tabaco Women’s Transport Service Cooperative (TAWTRASCO) until his employment was terminated on March 6, 2006. Following his dismissal, he filed a complaint on March 7, 2006, for illegal dismissal and monetary claims before the Labor Arbiter in Legaspi City, which was eventually docketed as NLRC RAB V Case No. 03-00092-06. On August 22, 2006, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of BaAares, declaring his termination illegal and ordering TAWTRASCO to reinstate him with backwages amounting to PHP 119,600. Following the decision, TAWTRASCO did not appeal, and the ruling became final and executory, with TAWTRASCO subsequently paying BaAares the requisite amount covering damages and backwages for the period from March 6, 2006, to August 22, 2006. However, reinstatement was delayed, and due to the strained relations between the parties, TAWTRASCO proposed separation pay, which BaAares rejected. Ultimat

...

Facts:

Employment and Termination

• Alexander B. BaAares, who served as the general manager of Tabaco Womenas Transport Service Cooperative (TAWTRASCO), was terminated on March 6, 2006.
• On March 7, 2006, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims before the Labor Arbiter (LA) in RAB V of the NLRC in Legaspi City (Case No. 03-00092-06).

Initial Decisions and Compliance

• On August 22, 2006, the LA rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner ordering his immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority and the payment of PhP 119,600 as backwages and damages.
• TAWTRASCO complied by paying the monetary award but did not immediately reinstate petitioner.
• Due to strained employer-employee relations, TAWTRASCO offered petitioner separation pay (PhP 172,296), which he rejected.

Compromise Agreement and Subsequent Orders

• The parties eventually entered into a Compromise Agreement where petitioner waived part of his claim (backwages from August 23, 2006 to February 5, 2007) in return for his reinstatement effective February 6, 2007.
• On February 5, 2007, the LA issued an Order basing its decision on the compromise agreement, closing the case.
• On February 24, 2007, petitioner received a Memorandum Order from TAWTRASCO directing him to report to the Virac, Catanduanes terminal, along with an enumeration of duties that deviated from his position as general manager.

Reassignment and Petitioner's Grievances

• On March 20, 2007, TAWTRASCO served petitioner a new memorandum (Memorandum No. 10, Series of 2007) that temporarily assigned him to the Virac terminal for two months and thereafter required him to split his time between Virac and Cubao.
• Petitioner's assignment at Virac entailed duties resembling those of a checker rather than a general manager, and it was coupled with the denial of his customary lodging allowance and office space.
• Petitioner expressed his grievances verbally to Oliva Barcebal, the Board of Directors (BOD) Chairman, and later in a detailed letter on March 12, 2007, objecting to his demotion, the unsatisfactory working conditions, and the discontinuation of established privileges such as free lodging.

Further Administrative and Legal Proceedings

• On April 12, 2007, after being observed absent from work since March 31, 2007, petitioner was asked by TAWTRASCO to explain his absence.
• On April 27, 2007, petitioner filed a separate complaint alleging nonpayment of salaries and withholding of privileges, seeking the issuance of an alias writ of execution based on the NLRC-ordered reinstatement.
• The LA, on April 14, 2008, issued an order granting petitioner reinstatement salaries (net of amounts already received) and a monthly allowance, reflecting the employer’s non-compliance with the full reinstatement aspect of the August 22, 2006 LA Decision.

Decisions by NLRC, CA, and the Supreme Court

• TAWTRASCO, after paying the backwages, appealed the reinstatement order to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal on July 7, 2009.
• The CA, however, set aside the NLRC and LA decisions on October 14, 2010, finding that TAWTRASCO had "fully reinstated" petitioner by virtue of his posting and its assertion that his subsequent failure to report amounted to abandonment.
• Petitioner, challenging the CA’s ruling, assailed the decision before the Supreme Court on several grounds including non-observance of procedural requirements, disregard of the doctrine on res judicata, and improper application of the law regarding reinstatement and abandonment.

Issue:

• Whether petitioner was genuinely reinstated to his former position as general manager as mandated by the LA’s and NLRC’s decisions despite the issuance of a compromise agreement.
• Whether petitioner’s failure to report for work at the Virac terminal amounted to abandonment or was justified by the deleterious conditions and demotion in rank imposed by TAWTRASCO.
• Whether TAWTRASCO’s unilateral alteration of his working conditions—including the denial of lodging, office space, and appropriate allowances—constituted a breach of the reinstatement order under Article 223 of the Labor Code and established employment privileges.
• Whether the CA abused its discretion by effectively reversing the favorable decisions of the LA and NLRC, and by failing to appreciate the factual circumstances evidencing that the reinstatement was not genuine.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)