Case Digest (G.R. No. 174316)
Facts:
Teodorico S. Miranda, Jr. v. Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 174316, June 23, 2009, First Division, Puno, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Teodorico S. Miranda, Jr. (petitioner) was employed by Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) beginning in 1991 as Checker I and was a member of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU). In April 1992 he was appointed Shop Steward pursuant to the CBA; that position, the CBA provided, was designated from union members upon recommendation of the union president. Between September and December 1993 the union president recalled petitioner as Shop Steward alleging chronic absenteeism; petitioner was given five days to explain. A rift developed within APCWU; a grievance committee investigated complaints and recommended petitioner’s recall, but petitioner declined to participate.
Petitioner sought relief first with the DOLE Mediation Office (Mediation-Arbiter) in a complaint for reinstatement as Shop Steward. The Med-Arbiter ordered reinstatement on August 1, 1994, a decision the Secretary of Labor affirmed in a February 23, 1995 Resolution finding the recall invalid for lack of Board approval and for failure of due process. Petitioner then pursued money claims and multiple actions before Labor Arbiters and the NLRC alleging unfair labor practice, illegal demotion and constructive dismissal; various arbiters dismissed or consolidated matters on jurisdictional or prior-judgment grounds, producing a convoluted procedural history.
On August 20, 1999, Labor Arbiter Arthur Amansec issued a decision finding demotion without due process and ordering P1,000 indemnity (applying the Wenphil doctrine) and, inconsistently, declaring constructive dismissal with reinstatement and backwages. That decision spawned execution orders, a break-open order, garnishment and a petition for prohibition and TRO by ATI. The NLRC’s Third Division remanded Amansec’s decision for clarification and issued a TRO enjoining execution; the NLRC later dissolved writs of execution and, in a March 22, 2005 decision (Special Third Division), held the reinstatement aspect unnecessary because petitioner had been re-employed as Checker I prior to retrenchment and was ultimately retrenched on October 21, 2001.
Petitioner filed two petitions in the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 68283 and CA G.R. SP No. 77174). The CA’s Third Division initially (June 27, 2005) reversed the NLRC resolutions, ruling the reinstatement order was immediately executory; on ATI’s motion the CA issued an amended decision (August 31, 2005) vacating the June 27 ruling and dismissing the petitions as moot and academic in view of petitioner’s subsequent reinstatement ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the petitioner be reinstated to the position of Shop Steward?
- Has the petition become moot and academi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)