ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., FORMERLY MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ROLANDO T. RODOLFO, ALFREDO L. LANZA, AND BRENDO S. POQUIZ, RESPONDENTS.

Asian Terminals versus Villanueva

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Asian Terminals, formerly Marina Port Services, against four of its dismissed workers, Renato Villanueva, Rolando Rodolfo, Alfredo Lanza, and Brendo Poquiz. The company had terminated them under the closed-shop clause of its collective bargaining agreement with their union; the labor tribunals declared the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages; and the quarrel that reached the Supreme Court was whether the company, in fact, obeyed that final order. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of reinstatement — restoration to the former position or to one substantially equivalent, never promotion — and because it shows how a final and executory labor judgment is enforced.

Procedural History

The workers filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The labor arbiter declared the termination illegal, ordered reinstatement to former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights, and awarded backwages against both the union and the company. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed, and that decision became final and executory. A partial writ of execution issued, and the company reinstated the four workers in February 1996.

The workers then moved for contempt and for additional backwages, claiming they were not restored to their former or equivalent positions. A second labor arbiter denied additional backwages to three of them but ordered the company to admit them back to work, and granted additional backwages to Poquiz. The company appealed. The National Labor Relations Commission deleted the award to Poquiz, holding that the company had merely reclassified positions and had reinstated everyone to substantially equivalent posts. The workers went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari. The Court of Appeals set aside the Commission and ordered reinstatement to substantially equivalent positions with full backwages. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The four respondents were employees of Marina Port Services and members of the Associated Workers Union of the Philippines. In June 1993 the union president wrote the company demanding their dismissal, stating that they had been expelled from the union for inimical acts. Two days later the company issued a memorandum terminating them effective immediately, invoking the closed-shop provision of the collective bargaining agreement.

The workers sued, and the labor arbiter declared the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement to former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages. The Commission affirmed and the ruling became final. Under a partial writ of execution the company reinstated them in February 1996, designating Lanza, Rodolfo, and Villanueva as casual rotation employees and Poquiz as dockworker vessel.

The workers protested that they had really been deliverymen and a day worker vessel, and that Poquiz's old post had been taken by another. The labor officials split: one denied additional backwages to three but ordered them admitted back to work and awarded backwages to Poquiz; the Commission deleted even that award, finding the reclassification legitimate and the reinstatement proper. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the company elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the company reinstated the respondents to their former positions or to positions substantially equivalent to them.

Applicable Provisions

Article 280 of the Labor Code, which the Court of Appeals applied in holding the respondents regular employees, provides:

Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.

It bears on the case because regularity of employment underlies the respondents' claim that the posts given them on reinstatement were not their true posts.

Ruling

The Court ruled that the company did reinstate the respondents to their former positions, and it set aside the Court of Appeals. It began with the meaning of the remedy: reinstatement is restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed, and the person reinstated assumes the position he occupied before dismissal. Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position still exists, or that there is an unfilled position substantially equivalent or of similar nature.

The Court held that the posts given in February 1996 — casual rotation employee for Lanza, Rodolfo, and Villanueva, and dockworker vessel for Poquiz — were precisely the posts they held before dismissal. The union's demand letter of June 1993 and the company's termination memorandum of the same month both listed those very designations. The Court also stressed that factual findings of labor officials, who have expertise in their field, are generally accorded great weight when supported by substantial evidence.

On the claim to be restored as deliverymen, the Court found no proof that the position of deliveryman was the same as reserved deliveryman, and no proof that the three were already deliverymen when dismissed. Poquiz presented nothing to show his prior post was day worker vessel; his union card showed the same designation to which he was reinstated. Finally, the Court held that the fact their co-employees had been promoted did not entitle them to like positions, because reinstatement does not mean promotion, and promotion rests primarily on an employee's performance over a period.

Doctrine

Reinstatement means restoration to the position occupied before dismissal, or to an unfilled position substantially equivalent or of similar nature; it presupposes that the former post still exists or that an equivalent one is open. Reinstatement is not promotion: the mere fact that co-employees who held the same rank have since been promoted does not entitle a reinstated employee to a similar higher post. The factual findings of labor officials on matters within their expertise are generally accorded great weight when supported by substantial evidence. And regularity under Article 280 of the Labor Code — one year of service, continuous or broken, making an employee regular as to the activity in which he is employed — secures tenure in the activity, not a guarantee of any particular job title.

Disposition

The company won: the Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, and reinstated the National Labor Relations Commission decision of January 1998.

Remember This

Memorize the line that reinstatement means restoration, not promotion. Examiners use this case to test the scope of a reinstatement order and the weight given to the factual findings of labor officials.