ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 107378.
REMEDIOS K. ASIS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, VETERANS PHILIPPINES SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY and/or ENGR. SERGIO JAMILA IV, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, finding petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and ordering private respondent to pay him backwages and separation pay.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Remedios K. Asis (a male) was hired by private
respondent Philippines Scout Security Agency (hereinafter referred to as
Security Agency) on
On
On
Private respondents, on the other hand, claimed that petitioner had not been dismissed but that it was he who stopped reporting for work after taking a leave of absence; that his relief from his last post was upon the request of their client, Purefoods Corporation; and that the transfer of the assignment of security guards is a management prerogative. Private respondents also averred that Remedios was asked to go back to work but he refused.
At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter,1
petitioner presented his evidence and was duly cross-examined by the private
respondents counsel.
When it came to
the turn of private respondents on
Private respondents moved for a reconsideration. Their motion was, however, denied by the Labor Arbiter. Thereafter, based on the position papers, comments and replies of the parties and the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding petitioner to have been illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter found no valid reason for the transfer as petitioner had not violated any rule and regulation of the Security Agency. He ruled that petitioners transfer amounted to a demotion and, therefore, he was justified in refusing his assignment to Calauan, Laguna.
As regards private respondents claim that the assignment of petitioner to a new post was due to the request of Purefoods Corporation to replace him, the Labor Arbiter held that no evidence was presented to support such claim. The Labor Arbiter said that if there was such a request, it should have been attached to the position paper of private respondents.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was entitled to "limited" backwages for one year equal to P35,356.00 and that, in view of the strained relation between the parties which made reinstatement not feasible, petitioner should instead be granted separation pay at the rate of one months salary for every year of service which, based on his last salary of P4,417.40 a month, was equal to P17,669.60. However, the dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiters decision reads:
WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby directed (1) to pay complainant one year backwages amounting to P26,402.00 and separation pay amounting to P35,356.00; Complainants monetary claims are hereby dismissed for insufficient evidence.
SO ORDERED.2cräläwvirtualibräry
Apparently the amount of P35,356.00 mentioned in the dispositive portion was for backwages for one year and not for separation pay, while the amount of P26,402.00 should be P17,669.60 and it should be for separation pay, not for backwages. Be that as it may, on appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision on the ground that petitioners new assignment was an exercise of management prerogative. It gave credence to private respondents claim that petitioners relief as detachment commander at the Paguyo Breeder Farm of Purefoods Corporation was the result of the latters request; that petitioner was assigned as an ordinary security guard at Calauan, Laguna because it was the only post available at that time and the reassignment was made to make his services continuous and uninterrupted.3cräläwvirtualibräry
The NLRC held that there was no constructive dismissal as there was no substantial inconvenience or damage to the complainant arising from the change of assignment. Neither was there a diminution in pay, benefits and privileges, because "in fact, as respondent claimed, it was stressed upon his re-assignment that there would be no diminution in his benefits."
The dispositive portion of NLRCs decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter, awarding backwages and separation pay to the complainant is hereby set aside. The complainant is requested to report back to the respondents office for resumption of his duties as security guard and to abide by the official instructions to be given to him. The complaint for illegal dismissal is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.4cräläwvirtualibräry
On
The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation In Lieu of Comment, taking the side of petitioner. He states that there is no evidence to show that Purefoods Corporation requested the relief of petitioner. He contends that petitioners transfer to Calauan, Laguna is a demotion and that because of the distance from his former post, petitioner would suffer great inconvenience.
The sole issue tendered for resolution by the parties is whether or not petitioner Remedios K. Asis was constructively dismissed. We hold that he was. We have recognized the prerogative of management to transfer employees as the exigency of the business may require. This prerogative cannot, however, be exercised if the result is the demotion in rank or the diminution in salary, benefits and other prerogatives of the employee. And this prerogative must not be exercised in bad faith. While transfer may occasion hardship or inconvenience to an employee, yet unnecessary or inconvenient and prejudicial transfers cannot be justified.5 Much less can management exercise this prerogative as a pretext for disciplining its employees without due process.
In this case Purefoods Corporation allegedly asked for the relief of petitioner as early as May 30, 1990, but it was only on July 16, 1990 - after his return from a leave of absence which private respondents had granted - that he was told of his transfer. Before that, he was not informed of the new assignment, much less the reasons for such assignment. In fact he was never formally notified of his transfer. He just found this out when another security guard was appointed to his post as detachment commander.
In their Comment on the instant petition, private respondents submit a "Clients Monthly Assessment" dated May 30, 1990 where it is stated that Purefoods Corporation wanted to "replace security guard Remedios Asis due to negligence of duty (gambling and drinking liquor)." This belated presentation has not been explained. There was not even a claim either in the Labor Arbiters Office or in the NLRC that Purefoods Corporation requested petitioners relief because of neglect of duty, much less gambling and drinking. It is clear that the last-minute presentation of this self-serving piece of evidence is intended to justify what is an indefensible position.
Nor can petitioners transfer to Calauan, Laguna be justified. In the first place, it is a demotion to a position lower than that previously held by him. Where before he was a detachment commander, he would now be demoted to mere security guard. As petitioner testified, his duties and responsibilities as detachment commander were, among others, to detail and supervise the men under him. He would no longer have this prerogative as a mere security guard. His duties would cease to be supervisory. Secondly, because of the distance of Sta. Rosa to Calauan, he would have to spend more on transportation, so that although private respondents claim that he would suffer no diminution in pay, the result would be that he would earn less. For practical purposes he would suffer a cut in his salary.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that petitioner was constructively
removed and that his dismissal was illegal. In accordance with Art. 279 of the
Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, which took effect on
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
dated
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Romero, and Puno, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Labor Arbiter Ambrosio B. Sison.
2 Rollo, p. 30.
3 Rollo, p. 42.
4 Rollo, p. 45.
5 Yuco Chemical Industries, Inc. v. Ministry of Labor and Employment, 185 SCRA 727(1990).