GR 143219; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143219 ; November 28, 2006
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., formerly MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ROLANDO T. RODOLFO, ALFREDO L. Lanza, and BRENDO S. POQUIZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were illegally dismissed by Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPSI, now Asian Terminals, Inc.) on June 11, 1993, pursuant to a union expulsion and a closed-shop provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages. This decision was affirmed by the NLRC and became final. Pursuant to a writ of execution, MPSI reinstated the respondents on February 26, 1996.
However, respondents claimed they were not reinstated to their former or substantially equivalent positions. Three were reinstated as “Casual Rotation Employees” (CREs) instead of their former “deliveryman” designations, while the fourth was made a “Dockworker Vessel” (DWV) instead of a “Day Worker Vessel.” They filed a motion for contempt and sought additional backwages, arguing the new positions were not equivalent.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, Asian Terminals, Inc., complied with the final and executory reinstatement order by returning the respondents to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the reinstatement was not to substantially equivalent positions. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a reinstatement order following illegal dismissal. Reinstatement means restoration to the former position or, if no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and privileges.
The Court found that the respondents, having rendered more than one year of service, were regular employees at the time of their illegal dismissal. Their former positions as “deliverymen” and “day worker vessel” were regular in nature. The new positions of “CRE” and “DWV” to which they were assigned were casual or rotational by designation, implying a lack of security of tenure and different benefits. This constituted a demotion in the guise of a corporate reclassification. The employer’s prerogative to reorganize does not justify assigning illegally dismissed regular employees to casual positions, as this defeats the very purpose of reinstatement, which is to restore them as nearly as possible to their former status. Consequently, the failure to reinstate properly entitled them to additional backwages from the date of the purported reinstatement until actual compliance with the order.