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
 

   
September-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-03-1705 September 2, 2003 - BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 138238 September 2, 2003 - EDUARDO BALITAOSAN v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 146980 September 2, 2003 - LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET AL. v. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003 - ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. WILFREDO OCA

  • A.C. No. 6084 September 3, 2003 - FELICITAS BERBANO v. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

  • A.M. No. 02-10-614-RTC September 3, 2003 - RE: EDITORIAL OF THE NEGROS CHRONICLE AND OTHER CHARGES OF A CONCERNED CITIZEN AGAINST JUDGE ROGELIO CARAMPATAN

  • A.M. No. OCA-01-6 September 3, 2003 - DOMINADOR V. ASPIRAS v. ESMERALDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1466 September 3, 2003 - EDUARDO F. BAGO v. JOEL FERAREN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1501 September 3, 2003 - ROMEO E. EJERCITO v. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE

  • G.R. No. 131915 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136274 September 3, 2003 - SUNFLOWER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139400 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

  • G.R. No. 140652 September 3, 2003 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. PABLO V. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 144312 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA TAN LEE

  • G.R. No. 145737 September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

  • G.R. No. 149617 September 3, 2003 - MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

  • G.R. No. 141527 September 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY G. BOCALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788 September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 September 8, 2003 - ROMEO B. SENSON v. HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 128296 September 8, 2003 - NASIPIT LUMBER CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152957 September 8, 2003 - FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL v. EDUARDO REYES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480 September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

  • G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107271 September 10, 2003 - CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL. v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125329 September 10, 2003 - ANN BRIGITT LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140762 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER C. ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 148912 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

  • G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003 - TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MARINA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1562 September 11, 2003 - ROMULO SG. VILLANUEVA v. CHARLIE C. LARCENA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742 September 11, 2003 - AVELINA MADULA v. RUTH CRUZ SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 136286-89 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN G. DE TAZA

  • G.R. No. 138366 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 - CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144785 September 11, 2003 - YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145407 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO HEREVESE

  • G.R. No. 151081 September 11, 2003 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. PAXTON DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153126 September 11, 2003 - MONTEREY FOODS CORP., ET AL. v. VICTORINO E. ESERJOSE

  • G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 September 12, 2003 - MARIA CRISTINA OLONDRIZ PERTIERRA v. ALBERTO L. LERMA

  • G.R. No. 127206 September 12, 2003 - PERLA PALMA GIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135029 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003 - ROBERTO FULGENCIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144639 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY GO

  • G.R. Nos. 144972-73 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO JUNAS

  • G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 147814-15 September 16, 2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 155278 September 16, 2003 - PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHIL. POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

  • A.M. No. P-03-1740 September 17, 2003 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA v. TEOFILA A. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656 September 17, 2003 - EDGARDO D. BALSAMO v. PEDRO L. SUAN

  • G.R. No. 141120 September 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. No. 146125 September 17, 2003 - NOVELTY PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1347 September 18, 2003 - BENJAMIN TUDTUD v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. P-00-1370 September 18, 2003 - ALEJANDRO PAREDES, ET AL. v. JERRY MARCELINO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1510 September 18, 2003 - MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA v. GRACE L. SONGCUYA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1691 September 18, 2003 - JOSE S. SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B. RABINA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1703 September 18, 2003 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1724 September 18, 2003 - VICENTE ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1742 September 18, 2003 - SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

  • G.R. No. 135559 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 135563 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 144913 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. GERONIMO C. CENIZA

  • G.R. No. 149627 September 18, 2003 - KENNETH O. NADELA v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 152351 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMIL MALA

  • G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL

  • G.R. No. 153571 September 18, 2003 - BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156259 September 18, 2003 - GROGUN, INC. v. NAPOCOR

  • G.R. No. 157957 September 18, 2003 - CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142974 September 22, 2003 - SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO and AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA and SANCHO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 152529 September 22, 2003 - SPS. HENDRIK and ALICIA S. BIESTERBOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450 September 23, 2003 - RAMIRO S. DE JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509 September 23, 2003 - HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES v. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1732 September 23, 2003 - ROSENINA O. UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA R. EDILO

  • G.R. No. 123140 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135446 September 23, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BPI

  • G.R. No. 136729 September 23, 2003 - ASTRO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL. EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 138716-19 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PILLAS

  • G.R. No. 138725 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OLIVAR

  • G.R. No. 139360 September 23, 2003 - HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140982 September 23, 2003 - MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141434 September 23, 2003 - ANTONIO LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143132 September 23, 2003 - VAN MELLE PHILS. ET AL. v. VICTOR M. ENDAYA

  • G.R. No. 144533 September 23, 2003 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146786-88 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES T. DAÑO

  • G.R. No. 149295 September 23, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENEROSO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 149370 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 150905 September 23, 2003 - CITIBANK v. EFREN S. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 151072 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151931 September 23, 2003 - ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 152823-24 September 23, 2003 - RUFINA CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152998 September 23, 2003 - SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003 - MARCELO R. SORIANO v. SPS. RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

  • G.R. No. 156983 September 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of JOSE VICTOR RIGOR y DANAO v. The Superintendent

  • A.M. No. P-00-1418 September 24, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 124293 September 24, 2003 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130087 September 24, 2003 - DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136726 September 24, 2003 - PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148924 September 24, 2003 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153781 September 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 153885 & 156214 September 24, 2003 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746 September 26, 2003 - ROGER F. BORJA v. ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 130330 September 26, 2003 - FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN and LOLITA TAN

  • G.R. No. 141217 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO DUBAN

  • G.R. No. 144037 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL P. TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5480 September 29, 2003 - LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 137370-71 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL OCO

  • G.R. No. 139185 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 148902 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 - MARIO VALEROSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 152057 September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5854 September 30, 2003 - NORA E. MIWA v. RENE O. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 127593 September 30, 2003 - CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136742-43 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Y. ALFARO

  • G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE IGNAS

  • G.R. No. 142751 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143010 September 30, 2003 - MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 144230 September 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. MACKAY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148332 September 30, 2003 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORP.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 152057   September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 152057. September 29, 2003.]

    PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. 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 GUILLERMO DEMEGILLO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    CALLEJO, SR., J.:


    This is a petition for review filed by petitioner Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T) of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54346 promulgated on June 15, 2001 affirming the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) promulgated on May 31, 1999 reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and its Resolution dated February 6, 2002 denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

    The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing telegraph and communication services thru its branches all over the country. It employed various employees, among whom were the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Cristina Rodiel, initially as a Probationary Junior Counter-Clerk on July 1, 1995 at the Cabanatuan Branch, regularized on November 28, 1995;

    2. Jesus Paracale as a Probationary Junior CW Operator in Padada, Davao del Sur on November 16, 1988, regularized on April 15, 1990, transferred to Malita, Davao Branch on November 16, 1990, to Makar, South Cotabato Branch on September 1, 1994 and to Kiamba, South Cotabato Branch on April 1, 1995,

    3. Romeo Tee as Counter-Clerk at the Zamboanga Branch on January 16, 1982, as a TTY Operator on November 16, 1986, promoted as TTY Operator General on November 1, 1989 and designated as TRITY Operator Regions on July 1, 1997;

    4. Benjamin Lakandula as a Counter-Clerk at the Iligan City Branch on January 16, 1982;

    5. Avelino Acha as Probationary Junior Counter at the Naga City Branch, regularized on June 10, 1983, transferred to Legaspi City Branch on November 16, 1989;

    6. Ignacio Dela Cerna as a Probationary Junior CW-Operator in at the Pagadian City Branch regularized on March 15, 1986 and designated as TR/TTY Operator Regions on July 1, 1993 at the Pagadian City Branch, and

    7. Guillermo Demigillo as Clerk. 2

    Sometime in 1997, after conducting a series of studies regarding the profitability of its retail operations, its existing branches and the number of employees, the petitioner came up with a Relocation and Restructuring Program designed to (a) sustain its (PT&T’s) retail operations; (b) decongest surplus workforce in some branches, to promote efficiency and productivity; (c) lower expenses incidental to hiring and training new personnel; and (d) avoid retrenchment of employees occupying redundant positions. 3

    On August 11, 1997, private respondents Cristina Rodiel, Jesus Paracale, Romeo Tee, Benjamin Lakandula, Avelino Acha, Ignacio Dela Cerna and Guillermo Demigillo received separate letters from the petitioner, giving them the option to choose the branch to which they could be transferred. Thereafter, through HRAG Bulletin No. 97-06-16, the private respondents and other petitioner’s employees were directed to "relocate" to their new PT&T Branches. The affected employees were directed to report to their respective relocation assignments in a Letter dated September 16, 1997.

    The petitioner offered benefits/allowances to those employees who would agree to be transferred under its new program, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    EXISTING SPECIAL FLAT MOVING

    RELOCATION RELOCATION RELOCATION EXPENSES

    ALLOWANCE ALLOWANCE ALLOWANCE (FREIGHT)

    1. Temporary 2.1 Married employee

    relocation — per diem bringing along

    of P260.00/day his family P17,500.00 P15,000

    2. Permanent relocation 2.2 Married employee

    — a flat monthly not bringing along

    allowance of his family P10,000.00 N/A

    P5,100.00 2.3 Single employee

    bringing along his

    qualified dependent/s P10,000.00 P15,000

    2.4 Single employee

    not bringing along

    his dependent/s P7,000.00 N/A 4

    Moreover, the employees who would agree to the transfers would be considered promoted, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    FROM TO

    NAME POSITION/JG* WORK POSITION WORK

    LOCATION LOCATION

    1. ACHA, Jr. Counter - Legaspi (Br) Courier - JG3 Romblon /

    AVELINO JG2 Odiongan (SL)

    2. RODIEL, Jr. Counter Cabanatuan Clerk - JG4 Baguio (NWL)

    CRISTINA Clerk - JG2 (CL)

    3. DELA Jr. CW Cotabato City Clerk - JG4 Kidapawan (CM)

    CERNA, Operator - JG2 (CM)

    IGNACIO

    4. DEMIGILLO Jr. CW Midsayap Courier - JG3 Lebak (CM)

    GUILLERMO Operator - JG2 North

    5. LAKANDULA, Counter - JG3 Iligan (NM) Clerk - JG4 Butuan (EM)

    BENJAMIN

    6. PARACALE, Jr. CW Makar, Gen. Clerk - Butuan (EM)

    JESUS Operator - JG2 Santos (SM) JG4

    7. TEE, ROMEO TTY Operator- Zamboanga Clerk - JG4 Jolo (WM) 5

    Gen. JG4 City (WM)

    The private respondents rejected the petitioner’s offer. On October 2, 1997, the petitioner sent letters to the private respondents requiring them to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for their refusal to be transferred/relocated. 6

    In their respective replies to the petitioner’s letters, the private respondents explained that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The transfers imposed by the management would cause enormous difficulties on the individual complainants. For one, their new assignment involve distant places which would require their separation from their respective families. For instance, in the case of Avelino Acha who would be coming from Bicol Region, he would have to take a boat in going to his new assignment in Odiongan, Romblon. The voyage would take a considerable period of time and it would be imperative for him to relocate to Romblon to be able to attend to his new assignment.

    The same holds true with the other complainants. Romeo Tee for instance, will have to take an overnight boat trip from his previous assignment in Zamboanga to his new assignment in Jolo, Sulu. He would have to part with his family and resettle to Jolo in connection with his transfer. Cristina Rodiel on the other hand, would be transferred to Baguio City which is quite distant from her previous workbase and residence at Cabanatuan. Jesus Paracale finds himself in the same difficult situation as he would be transferred from General Santos City at the Southern tip of Mindanao to Butuan City, almost a day’s travel by bus and located at the northernmost tip of the island. Benjamin Lakandula and Guillermo Demigillo, are also in the same situation as their new assignments are quite distant from their previous places of work. 7

    Dissatisfied with this explanation, the petitioner considered the private respondents’ refusal as insubordination and willful disobedience to a lawful order; hence, the private respondents were dismissed from work. 8 They forthwith filed their respective complaints against the petitioner before the appropriate sub-regional branches of the NLRC. 9

    Subsequently, the private respondents’ bargaining agent, PT&T Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU, filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice for and in behalf of the private respondents, including Ignacio Dela Cerna, before the arbitration branch of the NLRC. 10

    In their position paper, the complainants (herein private respondents) declared that their refusal to transfer could not possibly give rise to a valid dismissal on the ground of willful disobedience, as their transfer was prejudicial and inconvenient; thus unreasonable. The complainants further asserted that since they were active union members, the petitioner was clearly guilty of unfair labor practice 11 especially considering their new work stations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Jesus Paracale, from General Santos Branch to Butuan City Branch;

    2. Romeo Tee, from Zamboanga Branch to Jolo Branch;

    3. Benjamin Lakandula, from Iligan City to Butuan City;

    4. Avelino Acha, from Legaspi City Branch to Odiongan Branch;

    5. Ignacio Dela Cerna, from Pagadian City Branch to Butuan Branch; and

    6. Guillermo Demigillo, from Midsayap to Lebak Cotabato Branch. 12

    For its part, the petitioner (respondent therein) alleged that the private respondents’ transfers were made in the lawful exercise of its management prerogative and were done in good faith. The transfers were aimed at decongesting surplus employees and detailing them to a more demanding branch.

    In their reply to the petitioner’s position paper, the private respondents opined that since their respective transfers resulted in their promotion, they had the right to refuse or decline the positions being offered to them. Resultantly, the refusal to accept the transfers could not have amounted to insubordination or willful disobedience to the "lawful orders of the employer."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After the parties filed their respective pleadings, the Honorable Labor Arbiter Celenito N. Daing rendered a Decision on September 25, 1998 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. 13

    The labor arbiter ratiocinated that an employer, in the exercise of his management prerogative, may cause the transfer of his employees provided that the same is not attended by bad faith nor would result in the demotion of the transferred employees. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the aforesaid transfers indeed resulted in the private respondents’ promotion, and that the complaint for unfair labor practice was not fully substantiated and supported by evidence.

    Aggrieved, the private respondents appealed the aforesaid decision to the NLRC.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On May 31, 1999, the NLRC issued a Resolution which reversed and set aside the decision of the labor arbiter. The NLRC ruled that the petitioner illegally dismissed the private respondents, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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 promotions 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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 OF THE PETITIONER.

    4.2

    PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SUSTAINED PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE IN FACT 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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 FEBRUARY 6, 2002 AFFIRMING THE ORDER DATED MAY 31, 1999 OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONSIDERING THAT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a. THE ORDER DATED MAY 31, 1999 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;

    b. THE PETITIONER DID NOT ADMIT IN ITS POSITION PAPER FILED BEFORE THE LABOR ARBITER THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE BEING PROMOTED. ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE SIMPLY ORDERED TRANSFERRED TO OTHER WORK STATIONS WITHOUT DEMOTION IN RANK AND DIMINUTION IN SALARY;

    c. THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE LEGALLY TERMINATED FOR JUST AND AUTHORIZED CAUSE FOR WILFULL DISOBEDIENCE TO THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE PETITIONER (TRANSFER ORDER PURSUANT TO ITS RELOCATION AND RESTRUCTURING PROGRAM), AFTER AFFORDING THEM DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THUS NOT ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT; AND

    d. PETITIONER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN IMPLEMENTING ITS RELOCATION AND RESTRUCTURING PROGRAM WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, AND AS SUCH, THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF ANY BACKWAGES. 18

    In their Comment, the private respondents argue that the petition should be dismissed for the following reasons: (a) that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law; (b) the private respondents were promoted and not only transferred as established by the evidence on record; and (c) private respondents could not be penalized with dismissal for declining their promotions.

    The petition is denied due course.

    As has been enunciated in numerous cases, the issues that can be delved into in a petition for review under Rule 45 are limited to questions of law. Thus, the Court is not tasked to calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties during trial all over again. 19 The test of whether the question is one of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact. 20

    In the case at bar, the petitioner would want this Court to ascertain whether or not the findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are substantiated by the evidence on record; hence, requiring a review involving questions of facts. For this reason alone, this case should be dismissed.

    Even if the Court were to review the instant case on its merits, the dismissal of the petition is inevitable.

    Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC provides that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum — Should the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in whole or in part, during the conferences, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order stating therein the matters taken up and agree upon during the conferences and directing the parties to simultaneously file their respective verified position papers.

    These verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s direct testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers. Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 2 of this Rule, the Labor Arbiter shall direct both parties to submit simultaneously their position papers with supporting documents and affidavits within an inextendible period of ten (10) days from notice of termination of the mandatory conciliation mediation conference.

    In its position paper with the labor arbiter, the petitioner adverted that when the private respondents were transferred, they were also promoted, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Clearly, the transfer of the complainants is not unreasonable nor does it involve demotion in rank. They are being moved to branches where the complainants will function with maximum benefit to the company and they were in fact promoted not demoted from a lower job-grade to a higher job-grade and receive even higher salaries than before. Thus, transfer of the complainants would not also result in diminution in pay benefit and privilege since the salaries of the complainant would be receiving a bigger salary if not the same salary plus additional special relocation package. Although the increase in the pay is not significant this however would be translated into an increase rather than decrease in their salary because the complainants who were transferred from the city to the province would greatly benefit because it is of judicial notice that the cost of living in the province is much lower than in the city. This would mean a higher purchasing power of the same salary previously being received by the complainants. 21

    Indeed, the increase in the respondents’ responsibility can be ascertained from the scalar ascent of their job grades. With or without a corresponding increase in salary, the respective transfers of the private respondents were in fact promotions, following the ruling enunciated in Homeowners Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC: 22

    . . . [P]romotion, as we defined in Millares v. Subido, is "the advancement from one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary." Apparently, the indispensable element for there to be a promotion is that there must be an "advancement from one position to another" or an upward vertical movement of the employee’s rank or position. Any increase in salary should only be considered incidental but never determinative of whether or not a promotion is bestowed upon an employee. This can be likened to the upgrading of salaries of government employees without necessarily conferring upon them the concomitant elevation to higher positions. . . . 23

    The admissions of the petitioner are conclusive on it. An employee cannot be promoted, even if merely as a result of a transfer, without his consent. A transfer that results in promotion or demotion, advancement or reduction or a transfer that aims to ‘lure the employee away from his permanent position cannot be done without the employees’ consent. 24

    There is no law that compels an employee to accept a promotion for the reason that a promotion is in the nature of a gift or reward, which a person has a right to refuse. 25 Hence, the exercise by the private respondents of their right cannot be considered in law as insubordination, or willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer. As such, there was no valid cause for the private respondents’ dismissal.

    As the questioned dismissal is not based on any of the just or valid grounds under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the NLRC correctly ordered the private respondents’ reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment of backwages from the time of their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement.

    IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 15, 2001 is hereby AFFIRMED.cralawlibrary : red

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Eloy R. Bello, Jr., concurring.

    2. Rollo, pp. 13–14.

    3. Id. at 14.

    4. Id. at 105.

    5. Id. at 104.

    6. Id. at 69–74.

    7. Id. at 88–89.

    8. Id. at 80–86.

    9. Cristina Rodiel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on October 21, 1997; Jesus Paracale, on October 20, 1997, Romeo Tee, on October 29, 1997. Benjamin Lakandula also filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Avelino Acha filed his complaint for illegal dismissal on November 18, 1997, while Guillermo Demigillo filed his complaint on November 20, 1997. Ignacio Dela Cerna accepted the transfer order and was thus reinstated (Rollo, p. 101).

    10. Docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-11-08339-97.

    11. Id. at 89–90.

    12. Id. at 15.

    13. Id. at 130.

    14. Id. at 57.

    15. Id. at 148–149.

    16. Id. at 52.

    17. Id. at 55.

    18. Id. at 20.

    19. Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. and Manolet Lavides v. ICC Leasing and Financing Corporation, G.R. No. 150673, February 28, 2003.

    20. Pilar Y. Goyena v. Amparo Ledesma-Gustilo, G.R. No. 147148, January 13, 2003.

    21. Rollo, pp. 104–105.

    22. 262 SCRA 406 (1996).

    23. Id. at 416.

    24. Editha H. Canonigo v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 111144, July 18, 2002.

    25. Ma. Erly P. Erasmo v. Home Insurance & Guaranty Corporation, G.R. No. 139251, August 29, 2002.

    G.R. No. 152057   September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, 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