TEODORICO S. MIRANDA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. (ATI) AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Miranda versus Asian Terminals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Teodorico S. Miranda, Jr. against his employer, Asian Terminals, Incorporated, and the Court of Appeals. Miranda was a company employee who also served as union Shop Steward, a union position carried on the company payroll. When the union president recalled him as Shop Steward, the company approved the recall and reverted him to his original position of Checker I. The labor arbiter later found that the recall was for cause but was carried out without procedural due process, and also found a constructive dismissal arising from his reassignment to inferior positions. The case matters because it fixes the boundaries of a labor arbiter's jurisdiction to execute a reinstatement pending appeal, and because it teaches when a labor case becomes moot and academic.

Procedural History

The dispute generated several complaints before the labor arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission. Labor Arbiter Quinto dismissed the first complaint against the company for lack of cause of action. Labor Arbiter Jambaro-Franco dismissed the second complaint on the ground that it duplicated the first. Labor Arbiter Garduque dismissed the third complaint as barred by prior judgment, but the Third Division of the National Labor Relations Commission remanded the case, holding that the earlier dismissals were not on the merits and so res judicata did not attach.

On remand, Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a decision finding that the demotion from Shop Steward to Checker I was for cause but was effected without procedural due process, and awarding indemnity. The dispositive portion, however, also declared the petitioner constructively dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages, creating confusion. Labor Arbiter Reyes resolved the execution in the petitioner's favor, prompting the company to file a petition for prohibition. The National Labor Relations Commission then remanded the case to Labor Arbiter Amansec for clarification and restrained execution. Later, the Special Third Division of the National Labor Relations Commission ruled that the reinstatement aspect had been rendered moot and academic.

Miranda brought two petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which were consolidated. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the National Labor Relations Commission and held that the reinstatement aspect of the labor arbiter's decision is immediately executory. On the company's motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals issued an amended decision vacating that ruling and dismissing the petitions as moot and academic. Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Teodorico S. Miranda, Jr. was employed by Asian Terminals, Incorporated in 1991 as Checker I and was a member of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union. In April 1992, while serving as union vice president, he was appointed Shop Steward, a union position under the company payroll. Under the collective bargaining agreement, the Shop Steward is a field representative of both the company and the union and acts as an independent arbiter of complaints, and his designation and term of office rest on trust and confidence and the favorable recommendation of the union president.

In December 1993, union president Roger Silva wrote Miranda recalling his designation as Shop Steward, citing loss of trust and confidence and chronic absenteeism, and giving him five days to explain. A rift later developed between the union leadership and some members, including Miranda. A grievance committee investigated and recommended his recall and reversion to Checker I. Acting on the union's letters, the company issued a memorandum recalling his designation and reverting him to Checker I, with the salary corresponding to that position.

Miranda then filed a series of complaints. The Med-Arbiter ordered his reinstatement as Shop Steward, and the Secretary of Labor affirmed, holding that the union president merely recommends and that recall requires the approval of the union's Board of Directors, which was not shown. Meanwhile, the company reassigned Miranda to Checker I Mobile and later to Vessel Operation Checker, positions inferior in rank and salary. Labor Arbiter Amansec found the recall for cause but without procedural due process, and found a constructive dismissal from the reassignments. Miranda was later retrenched, and he executed a quit claim and release in a separate case for 350,000 pesos plus attorney's fees, expressly without prejudice to the other labor cases.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner should be reinstated to the position of Shop Steward.
• Whether or not the case has been rendered moot and academic.

Applicable Provisions

The decision turns on the collective bargaining agreement provision on the Shop Steward, which the company invoked in its memorandum. It provides:

Section 2. The Shop Steward shall be an independent arbiter of all complaints and grievances brought before him as a field representative both of the COMPANY and the UNION. Only bonafide members of the UNION shall be designated as Shop Steward whose designation and term of office shall be based on trust and confidence and upon the favorable recommendation of the duly elected president of the UNION. In like manner shall the designation of the Union rotation representative posted in the hiring shall be based.

This provision defines the Shop Steward's tenure as one grounded on trust and confidence, which bears on whether the recall was for a valid cause.

The amending provision on reversion provides:

Section 2-A. Upon the recall of the designation as Shop Steward, or union representative, as the case maybe, the party concerned shall revert back to his position occupied prior to the designation and shall receive the salary that corresponds to that particular office/position.

This provision supplies the consequence of a valid recall, namely reversion to the prior position, which bears on whether the petitioner was dismissed at all.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement as Shop Steward. The recall was a valid exercise of the union's prerogative under the collective bargaining agreement, whose terms made the designation rest on trust and confidence and the favorable recommendation of the union president. The Court stressed that the Shop Steward is a union position, not a company position, and that the company merely respected the union's decision. Reversion to Checker I was the contractual consequence of recall, so there was no dismissal from employment to speak of. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already been reinstated to Checker I and later retrenched and paid separation under a quit claim and release.

On the second issue, the Court held that the case had indeed been rendered moot and academic. The petitioner had been reinstated to Checker I, had been retrenched, and had executed a quit claim and release in the related case. There was no longer any live controversy for the Court to resolve, and any ruling on the execution of the reinstatement aspect would serve no practical purpose.

Doctrine

A Shop Steward under a collective bargaining agreement whose designation rests on trust and confidence and the favorable recommendation of the union president may be recalled by the union, and upon recall the employee reverts to the position occupied prior to the designation, receiving the salary corresponding to that position. The recall of a union position is a union prerogative, and the employer does not commit an illegal dismissal when it gives effect to that recall in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement.

A labor case becomes moot and academic when the employee has already been reinstated to his prior position, has been retrenched, and has executed a quit claim and release covering the related claims, leaving no live controversy for the Court to resolve.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the consolidated petitions as moot and academic was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the recall of a Shop Steward is a union prerogative, and reversion to the prior position under the collective bargaining agreement is not dismissal. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a union position and a company position, and to test when a labor controversy becomes moot and academic.