ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141825. June 7, 2000]

CORONADO LANES, et al. vs. JAIME ABAYON

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 141825 (Coronado Lanes and Reynaldo Pagdanganan vs. Jaime Abayon.)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the National labor Relations Commission which in turn affirmed with modification the decision of the labor arbiter finding petitioner guilty of constructive illegal dismissal.

Private respondent was employed as billiard attendant by petitioner since 1988 and assigned at Greenlanes in Greenhills, San Juan. He was receiving a daily salary of P181.00 with a monthly share in the service charges which averaged P900.00, plus a monthly incentive of P300.00.

On May 30, 1994, private respondent received a memorandum from petitioner Pagdanganan informing him of his transfer to Coronado Lanes Rustans effective June 1, 1994. However, said memorandum did not state the reason for the transfer.

As a consequence of said transfer, private respondent was deprived of the usual service charge and incentive benefits, since Coronado Rustans was a self-service center.

On June 20, 1994, alleging that he has been replaced by a contractual worker, private respondent filed an action for constructive illegal dismissal.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action alleging that private respondent was not dismissed but only transferred.

The labor arbiter decided in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioners to reassign private respondent to his post at Greenlanes or, at the option of private respondents, to pay him a separation pay in the sum of P51,893.60 computed at the rate of 1 month pay for every year of service.

On appeal, the NLRC modified the labor arbiter's decision and granted private respondent full backwages, computed from June 1, 1994 up to the time of his reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and benefits, plus attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00.

The Court of Appeals, upon the matter being elevated to it, affirmed the NLRC decision but deleted the attorney's fees since private respondent was represented by a non-lawyer who was not an accredited member of any legal aid office duly recognized by the Department of Justice or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Thus, the instant petition which must necessarily fail.

There is constructive dismissal when the reassignment or transfer of an employee involves a demotion in rank or diminution in pay (Lemer Savings and Loan Bank vs. NLRC, 205 SCRA 492 [1992]).

In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of establishing that the transfer and demotion of an employee were for valid and legitimate grounds, such as genuine business necessity. Particularly, for a transfer not to be considered dismissal, the employer must be able to show that such transfer was not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; and that it did not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. The failure of the employer to discharge this burden gives rise to the presumption that the employee's demotion amounted to unlawful constructive dismissal (Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 97 [1997]), citing Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp. vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 164 [1989]).

In the case at bar, no reason was advanced to justify private respondent's transfer. Petitioners knew very well that Rustan's Coronado Center is a self-service outlet and as such, there are no service charges or incentives enjoined by employees assigned thereat or in any branches of it other than at the Greenlanes. Thus, petitioners were much aware that transferring private respondent to Rustan's would make him lose his extra benefits of P1,200.00 as his share in service charges and monthly incentives. Further, petitioners do not deny that private respondent was replaced by agency worker. All these negate good faith in the exercise of employer's management prerogative. Hence, the transfer is tantamount to constructive illegal dismissal.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE