ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 107660. January 2, 1995 : RAMON C. LOZON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 : HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 : LEOUEL SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 : GEORGE I. RIVERA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 : ROLANDO B. ANGELES vs. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 : LESLIE W. ESPINO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 : EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 : ROLITO T. GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 : FEM'S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. vs. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 : MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 : ALFREDO B. FELIX vs. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 : TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO vs. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 : CITIBANK, N.A. vs. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 : AGRIPINO S. BELEN vs. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 : ETERIA T. TAN vs. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 : ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 : SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 : MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 : COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 : REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 : JAIME C. DACANAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 : MANUEL M. ALLEJE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 : CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 : ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 : SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO vs. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 : JACINTO MAPPALA vs. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 : RAUL H. SESBRENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 : NILO MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 : RAMON ABAD vs. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 : DJUMANTAN vs. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 : JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107660 January 2, 1995 - RAMON C. LOZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 - HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 - LEOUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 - GEORGE I. RIVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 - ROLANDO B. ANGELES v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 - LESLIE W. ESPINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 - EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 - ROLITO T. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 - MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 - ALFREDO B. FELIX v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 - TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO v. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 - CITIBANK, N.A. v. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 - AGRIPINO S. BELEN v. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 - ETERIA T. TAN v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 - SALLY D. BONGALONTA v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 - MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 - POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 - JAIME C. DACANAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 - MANUEL M. ALLEJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 - CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 - ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 - SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO v. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 - JACINTO MAPPALA v. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 - NILO MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 - ALFREDO S. LIM v. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 - RAMON ABAD v. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 - DJUMANTAN v. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 - JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 106843   January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

     

    SECOND DIVISION


    [G.R. No. 106843. January 20, 1995.]


    POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ARTHUR R. ALINAS, Respondents .


    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-01106-88 finding petitioner Pocketbell Philippines, Inc. guilty of illegal dismissal of the private respondent Arthur R. Alinas and ordering his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment to him of backwages for three years.cralaw

    The facts are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Pocketbell Phils., Inc. is a corporation wholly owned by Filipinos and organized under Philippine laws. In July 1987, it was placed under receivership by the securities and Exchange Commission, in view of an intra-corporate dispute between the Braga Family, which controlled the corporation, and the Telectronics system, Inc. As a result, corporate control was vested in a receivership committee. One of the committee members, Jose Abejo, was appointed General manager of the corporation.cralaw

    It appears that during the dispute, private respondent Arthur R. Alinas, who was an Accounting Supervisor, continued to report to the then Executive Vice president of the corporation, Virgilio Braga, who held office in his house.cralaw

    Eventually, control over the corporation was given to Telectronics system, Inc. The company staff was reorganized. among those affected was private respondent Alinas, who was replaced as Accounting Supervisor by Cecilia Agres in August 1987.cralaw

    On September 2, Alinas was appointed Staff assistant to the Finance Manager without change in salary. He was not however, allowed to hold the job. On February 22, 1988, he was informed that he would be transferred to Pocketbell Davao City branch as Provincial marketing and Sales Supervisor. As Alinas refused the assignment he was asked to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him.cralaw

    On March 10, 1988, Alinas wrote the new EVP, Jose Abejo, giving the following reasons for refusing the transfer:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1. You are fully aware of my background which is that of an accountant. The new appointment for me is that of Provincial Marketing Sales Supervisor based in Davao City. With the welfare and benefit of the company in mind, I cannot give justice to the position because I have no experience in marketing work.cralaw

    2. The new assignment will also cause inconvenience to my two sisters whom I am supporting especially since one of them will be reviewing for the coming CPA exams.cralaw

    3. The assignment is at Davao City. This would mean that I would not be able to continue my studies here in manila. 1

    On March 11, 1988, Abejo wrote Alinas informing him that his explanation was unsatisfactory. in his letter, Abejo stated:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1. That it is the management's duty to gauge the capacity and qualifications of its supervisors and employees, and it is its conclusion that among the available supervisors you are the most qualified to reverse the losing streak of Pocketbell, Davao, which has never yet experienced a single profitable month since its opening 2 years ago.cralaw

    2. That your assignment in Davao will in no way be a hindrance to the education of your sisters.cralaw

    3. That the undersigned has explained to you that your assignment is temporary as we know that improvement and reversal of the performance of Davao can be expected before the start of the school year. By then you may even want to take up law in Ateneo de Davao. 2

    Abejo gave Alinas until March 15, 1988 to assume his new assignment, otherwise his services would be terminated effective March 16, 1988.cralaw

    On March 15, 1988, Alinas filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the company and Jose Abejo, in the latter's official and personal capacity. The case was assigned to labor Arbiter Cornelio Linsangan, who, in a decision dated May 30, 1989, found the dismissal valid and accordingly dismissed the private respondent's complaint. 3

    On appeal the NLRC reversed. The dispositive portion of its decision, 4 dated November 26, 1991, reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is set aside, and a new judgment is entered; ordering the respondents to reinstate the complaint without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages but not to exceed three (3) years without qualification and deduction. In the event reinstatement is not feasible, then respondents are ordered to pay complainant his separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, plus backwages from the time of dismissal up to the promulgation of this decision, but limited to three years without qualification and deduction.cralaw

    Respondents are likewise ordered to pay complainant the sum equivalent to ten (10) percent of the total monetary award as attorney's fees. 5

    Pocketbell filed a motion for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied its motion for lack merit. Hence this petition.cralaw

    First. Pocketbell Philippines, Inc. charges that, in grave abuse of its discretion, the NLRC reversed the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter, even though such findings were not put in issue on appeal by private respondent.cralaw

    We find this contention to be without merit. The NLRC considered the same facts found by the Labor Arbiter. Where the NLRC differed was as to the conclusion to be drawn from those facts. Otherwise, it acted within its appellate power and considered no issue which was not raised on the appeal, namely, the validity of private respondent's dismissal on March 16, 1988.cralaw

    Thus the labor Arbiter found the facts to be as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Respondent, Pocketbell Phils., Inc. is a corporation engaged in the paging business. On March 1982, it employed complainant herein as Accounts Receivable Clerk. Three years thereafter, the latter was promoted to the position of Accounting Supervisor.cralaw

    Sometime in July 1987, respondent Pocketbell Phils., Inc. was placed under receivership by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC for brevity. Herein individual respondent Jose Abejo was appointed as its General Manager.cralaw

    It appears that the said action of SEC was triggered by the intra-corporate dispute between the Braga Family on one hand, and the Telectronic system, Inc. on the other hand.cralaw

    Evidence show that when the latter gained control of the interest of respondent company, a reorganization and reshuffle of key personnel were undertaken by the new management and among those who were affected was complainant Alinas.cralaw

    On 2 September 1987 complainant was issued a new assignment as Staff assistant to the Finance Manager with no change in remuneration. On 22 Feb. 1988, a memorandum was issued by the Executive Vice president of Pocketbell, herein individual respondent Jose Abejo, advising complainant of his new appointment as Provincial Marketing and Sales Supervisor based in the company's Davao Branch Office. . . .cralaw

    It appears that complainant refused to receive the said memorandum, thus another memorandum was issued to him on 8 March 1988 directing him to explain in writing why he should not be subjected to disciplinary action.cralaw

    xxx xxx xxx


    On 10 march 1988 complainant submitted to management his letter of explanation which states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    In connection with your memorandum dated march 7, 1988, directing me to explain why I should not be subjected to disciplinary action for insubordination, please consider the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (1) You are fully aware of my background, which is that of an accountant. The new appointment for me is that of Provincial Marketing and Sales Supervisor based in Davao City. With the welfare and benefit of the company in mind, I cannot give justice to the position because I have no experience in marketing work.cralaw

    (2) The new assignment will also cause inconvenience to my 2 sisters whom I am supporting especially since one of them will be reviewing for the coming CPA exams.cralaw

    (3) The assignments is at Davao City. This would mean that I would not be able to continue my studies here in Manila.cralaw

    I hope that with the above explanation, you will understand that my inability to accept your new offer of assignment cannot be considered as an act of insubordination or disrespect to a superior.cralaw

    In a letter of 11 March 1988, management advised complainant that his aforequoted answer was unsatisfactory. Hence, he was directed to assume his new assignment not later than 15 March 1988, failing which his services shall be considered terminated.cralaw

    Complainant maintains that his dismissal on 16 March 1988 was illegal as the same was without just cause. He asserts that right after Telectronics Systems, Inc. took control of the management of respondent company from the Braga Family a plan to ease him out was already conceived by individual respondent Jose Abejo. To buttress his contention, complainant cited the following circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Sometime in August, 1987, about a month after respondent company was placed under a receivership, individual respondent Abejo told him that Ms. Cecilia Agres will be appointed as Acting Accounting Supervisor (complaint's position) and he will be given the new position of Budget Officer. The information was given to him in the presence of the new Finance Officer, the Administrative Manager and Ms. Cecilia Agres herself.cralaw

    The promised position was never given to him and since then he was on floating status although he continued to report for work and received his salary without doing anything.cralaw

    On 2 September 1987 he was issued a new appointment as Staff Assistant to the Finance Manager with no change in renumeration but he nonetheless continued to be floating as he was not given any specific assignment.cralaw

    On 22 January 1988 he was called and told by respondent Abejo in his office that management does not feel comfortable with him.cralaw

    On 25 January 1988 respondent Abejo offered him separation pay equivalent to 75% of his basic salary but which offer he turned down. 6

    Based on these facts the labor Arbiter held that Alina's refusal to go to Davao was unjustified not only because there was a need for his services there but also because the transfer was "a chance" for him to "redeem the lost confidence of his employer." The reference to the company's "lost confidence" in Alinas is the Labor Arbiter's finding that by continuing to report to Virgilio T. Braga during the intra-corporate dispute, Alinas committed an act of disloyalty to the company. The labor Arbiter found:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    On cross examination, complainant admitted that even after the company was placed under receivership and Virgilio Braga was ousted he continued to report to the latter who brought out the operation of the company to his residence. (TSN 26 Aug. 1988, pp. 49-53)

    In the light of the foregoing, Respondents.cannot be faulted for it was the complainant himself who provided them the reasons to doubt his loyalty, especially considering the fact that the position he was then occupying was a very sensitive one. Moreover, it was reported and perceived at that time the Braga Family was organizing its own paging company. 7

    On the other hand, the NLRC, based on the same facts found by the Labor Arbiter, drew a different conclusion: Alinas was not guilty of disloyalty. He and other employees merely followed the instructions of Virgilio Braga to report to him in his house, pending resolution of the controversy in the company, but they immediately reported to the receivership committee after they were directed to do so. His transfer to the Davao City branch was a mere subterfuge resorted to by the company to mask its real intention to remove him because of what it perceived was his personal loyalty to the Braga. The NLRC held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    It appears unrebutted that since that takeover by the receivership committee, the new management was bent on removing the complainant as shown by narration of the circumstances that led to his termination. He was first promised the job as budget office, after his position of accounting supervisor was given to Ms. Agres. The position of budget officer was not extended to him for unknown reason(s). Instead, he was made a credit clerk with no definite duties and appointment. Later, he was made staff assistant to the Finance Manager but he was not made to perform the duties of such position. He was offered separation pay by the general manager, and when complainant refused he was given a provincial assignment in Davao City which management knew was not acceptable to him. And the reason for all these was that management was not feeling comfortable with complainant's presence in the company due to his perceived loyalty to the Braga family as shown by his continued reporting to its house of the executive vice president, Virgilio Braga, during the early days when the receivership committee took over the management of the company, added to this is the reported plan of the Braga family to organize or set up their own paging business.cralaw

    But it was made clear by Virgilio Braga, in his affidavit, that complainant and the other employees were instructed by him to report at his house to form a temporary office pending clarification and resolution of a legal controversy. But upon receipt of the directive of the receivership committee, complainant and all other employees, immediately complied therewith. (Record, page 58). It could not then be said that complainant Alinas preferred to take orders from the ousted executive vice president and that he deliberately refused to submit to the authority of the receivership committee. Mr. Braga has assumed full responsibility for the employees reporting to his office. 8

    There is, therefore, no basis for Pocketbell's contention that the NLRC considered facts which were not put in issue by private respondent in appealing from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Indeed, by contending that "the decision of the Labor Arbiter had no sufficient basis," private respondent put in issue the correctness of the Labor Arbiter's conclusion that private respondent was guilty of insubordination. Nor does the substantial evidence rule require a court to shut out from its view evidence in the record which fairly detracts from the decisions of a lower body. 9 This is true of our review of the decisions of the NLRC. It is certainly even more true of the review by the NLRC of the decisions of the Labor Arbiter.cralaw

    Second. Petitioner admits that after removing petitioner from the position of Accounting Supervisor, it offered him various other positions, but did not allow him to occupy those positions. Petitioner justifies its refusal on the ground that "[it] doubts the loyalty of the private respondent [because] the position of the private respondent is one of trust and confidence." 10

    To be sure the question of loyalty was never brought up in the discussion between petitioner and private respondent. By offering petitioner various positions in the company, i.e., Budget Officer, Staff Assistant to the Finance Manager, and then Marketing and Sales Supervisor, the petitioner affirmed its trust and confidence in him. In its memorandum of March 11, 1988 transferring private respondent to Davao City, petitioner in fact stated that the choice of private respondent was based on its judgment that private respondent was "the most qualified to reverse the losing streak of Pocketbell, Davao."

    It thus appears that the various positions promised (Budget Officer and Staff Assistant to the Finance Manager) to private respondent were never really intended to be given to him. The promises were made only to cover up the new management's real intention to remove him from his position as Accounting Supervisor. This was because the new management "doubted" his loyalty but could not otherwise prove its doubts or suspicion. The NLRC was right in finding that the circumstances leading to the termination of his employment clearly showed that "the management was really bent on removing [him]." In fact private respondent was told that the new management was "uncomfortable" with him and for this reason it offered to give him separation pay. As he refused separation pay, he was given the Davao City assignment, which the management knew he would not accept.cralaw

    We agree that normally it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business. We said so in Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. Laplana, 11 invoked by petitioner, which summarized the course of decisions from Interwood Employees Ass'n. v. International Hardwood & Veneer Co. of the Phil. 12 to Yaco Chemical Industries, Inc. v. MOLE 13 upholding the employer's right to transfer it s personnel for valid reasons. But we also said in Laplana case:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    But like all other rights, there are limits. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right must be exercised. Thus it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. Nor when the real reason is to penalize an employee for his union activities and thereby defeat his right of self-organization. But the transfer can be upheld when there is no showing that it is unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced employee. 14

    In the case at bar, the invocation of the right to transfer employees was a mere pretext or subterfuge resorted to by petitioner to rid itself of an employee with whom it felt "uncomfortable."

    WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw

    SO ORDERED.cralaw

    Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Puno, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:




    1. Rollo, p. 47.cralaw

    2. Rollo, p. 48.cralaw

    3. Rollo, pp. 80-87.cralaw

    4. Per Commissioner Romeo B. Putong and concurred in by Commissioners Bartolome S. Carale (Chairman) and Vicente S.P. Veloso.cralaw

    5. Rollo, p. 26.cralaw

    6. Rollo, pp. 80-84.cralaw

    7. Rollo, pp. 80-85.cralaw

    8. NLRC pp. 5-6, Rollo, p. 19, 23 and 25.cralaw

    9. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRC, 340 U.S. 474, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1956). Cf . Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union (VILLU), 30 SCRA (1969).cralaw

    10. Petition, p. 9, Rollo, p. 11.cralaw

    11. 199 SCRA 485 (1991).cralaw

    12. 99 Phil. 82 (1956).cralaw

    13. 185 SCRA 727 (1990).cralaw

    14. Supra note 11 at 493, quoting Yuco Chemical Industries, Inc. v. MOLE, 185 SCRA 727 (1990).

    G.R. No. 106843   January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED