The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced

in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction
occurred. When reconstitution is ordered, this document is replaced with a new onethe reconstituted titlethat reproduces the original. After the reconstitution, the owner is issued a
duplicate copy of the reconstituted title. In the present case, it is clear that the CA cancelled the order of reconstitution, which was previously granted by the lower court, thus, it should follow
intended date thereof. In case of termination due to installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected
thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent
it is safe to presume that the employer terminated the seafarers. In addition, the telex message relied
upon by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC bore conflicting dates of 22 January 1998 and 22 January 1999,
giving doubt to the veracity and authenticity
Challenged in the Petition for Certiorari 1 before us is the June 20, 1995 Decision 2 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), 3 which affirmed the August, 22 1994 ruling of Labor Arbiter
Cornelio L. Linsangan. The labor arbiters Decision disposed as follows: 4

The CA however reversed the LAs and the NLRCs decision. The Court deemed the telex message as a
self-serving document that does not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion that
petitioners indeed voluntarily demanded their immediate repatriation.
Aggrieved, Skippers appeals the case with the Supreme Court.

In April 1980, Mr. Illustrisimo, and others filed a complaint against the Tiangcos
for (1) nonpayment of legal holiday pay, (2) service incentive leave pay, as well as
(3) underpayment of emergency cost-of-living allowances, [ECOLA] which used to
be paid in full irrespective of their work days.

arrival at the fishing port, petitioners were told by )orge deG !man, president of private respondent, to
proceed to the police station at $amaligan,$amarines S r, for investigation on the report that they sold
some of their fish-catch at midseato the pre? dice of private respondent% Petitioners denied the
charge claiming

their own customers whom they charge a fee and divide the proceeds equally with the owner.

Articles 1-40 of the Labor Code

- Article 13, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
- Article 1700 of the New Civil Code
- Executive Order 247
- Republic Act 8042
- Rules and Regulations of the POEA
- Department Order 75-06