G.R. No. 152057 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CORPORATION, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PT&T PROGRESSIVE WORKERS UNION-NAFLU-KMU, CRISTINA RODIEL, JESUS PARACALE, ROMEO TEE, BENJAMIN LAKANDULA, AVELINO ACHA, IGNACIO DELA CERNA AND GUILLLERMO DOMEGILLO. D E C I S I

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered declaring respondent-appellee guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation to reinstate individual complainants-appellants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay them full backwages from the date of their dismissal up to the date of their actual reinstatement, computed as follows ... [14] The NLRC interpreted the said transfers of the respondents as a promotion; that the movement was not merely lateral but of scalar ascent, considering the movement of the job grades, and the corresponding increase in salaries. As such, the respondents had the right to accept or refuse the said promotions. The NLRC concluded that in the exercise of their right to refuse the promotion given them, they could not be dismissed. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals, assailing the May 31, 1999 Resolution of the NLRC. The petitioner raised the following errors: 4.1 PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF INSUBORDINATION FOR REFUSING TO HEED TO THE TRANSFER ORDER OR THE PETITIONER. 4.2 PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTEE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SUSTAINED PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE IN FAC BEING PROMOTED AND NOT TRANSFERRED, THUS RENDERING THE LATTER'S DISOBEDIENCE JUSTIFIED. PUBLIC RESPONDENTS (SIC) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND OTHER PRIVILEGES, AS WELL AS PAYMENT OF FULL BACKWAGES FROM DATE OF DISMISSAL UP TO DATE OF ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT. [15] On June 15, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming the resolution of the NLRC, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent commission, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed May 31, 1999 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. [16] The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 6, 2002, the CA issued a Resolution denying the motion. [17] Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed its petition for review assailing the decision and resolution of the CA, insisting that: I PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDERS DATED JUNE 15, 2001 AND FEBRUAR 6, 2002 AFFIRMING THE ORDER DATED MAY 31, 1999 OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONSIDERING THAT: THE ORDE