ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 152193.May 29, 2002]
TAAS vs. UST, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 29 MAY 2002.
G.R. No. 152193(Teresa Taas vs. University of Sto. Tomas, et al.)
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 58662 dated May 31, 2001 which affirmed in toto the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which in turn affirmed the resolution of the Labor Arbiter dismissing petitioner's complaint for illegal constructive dismissal against respondent school.
Petitioner was hired by the University of Sto. Tomas in 1977 as a high school teacher. In 1984, she became a regular faculty member. Starting the school year 1997-1998, numerous complaints against petitioner were received by Mr. Mariano Carpio, principal of the high school department. These complaints include (1) absences and tardiness; (2) poor teaching methods; (3) being inconsiderate of her students; (4) using foul language when referring to her students; (5) thoughtlessness; (6) negligence in filling up report cards; and (7) mistakes in grading her students. Petitioner was duly notified of all these complaints as evidenced by the letters from Mr. Carpio dated June 3, 1997; June 30, 1997; September 11, 1997; October 21, 1997; December 12, 1997; February 8, 1998; and March 24, 1998 requiring petitioner to explain the complaints against her.
At the start of the school year 1998-1999, the School Council informed petitioner that she would be given a new work assignment to review and evaluate history books equivalent to a teaching load.
On June 5, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal against respondents. She claimed that her re-assignment was due to an intra union dispute between her and a co-teacher. Petitioner argued that her removal from the teaching post diminished her status in the academic community.
Respondent denied the claim of constructive dismissal because petitioner continuously reported for work and received her salary. It also claimed that the act of giving petitioner a new assignment was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. [1] cralaw This was affirmed on appeal by the National Labor Relations Commission on August 30, 1999.On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld both the NLRC and the Arbiter's dismissals. Hence, this petition.
The petition must be denied for failure of petitioner to show any reversible error in the assailed decision. The right to transfer employees is the employer's prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employee's qualification, aptitude and competence. [2] cralaw In this case, respondent was able to prove that petitioner's re-assignment was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Petitioner was ineffective as aclassroom teacher inasmuch as numerous complaints were lodged against her by the students and her co-faculty which thus justified respondent's exercise of its prerogative to transfer petitioner from classroom teaching to an equivalent assignment. Respondent's claim of constructive dismissal was also belied by the fact that there was no diminution in her salaries and benefits, nor a demotion in her rank.
More importantly, it should be pointed out that constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation or a quitting resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. [3] cralaw In the present case, petitioner has not resigned at all and has continued her employment with respondent with the same rank and receiving the same salaries and benefits; hence her complaint for illegal constructive dismissal against respondents must be dismissed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw On February 25, 1999.
[2] cralaw Jarcia Machine and Auto Supply, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 266 SCRA 97 (1997).
[3] cralaw Escobin vs. NLRC , 289 SCRA 48 (1998); Ala Mode Garments, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission , 268 SCRA 497.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
