Labor Law Review

1. GERENCE RELENSE IS ONLY A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE

I.

Gerence relense was hired on jan 2015 and was transferred to dumaguete city on
april 2015 base on the decision only the company knows, in law this is a valid
management prerogative and an employee needs to abide and follow the rules and
polices set by the company in order for him/her to qualify for regular employment.
A. Under article 281 of the labor code, the grounds for termination of
employment can be base on 3 grounds and these are following: 1.)
just cause 2.) Authorize cause 3.) When probationary employee fails
to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standard made known by the employer to the employee at the start
of the eamployment.

2. GERENCE WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED

II.

Gerence was not constructively dismissed because she was only transferred
to another office owned by the company, in addition to it; dumaguete city is a
livable city contrary to his allegation that due to his difficulty in terms of
living conditions.
A. Our laws recognize and respect the exercise by management of certain rights and
prerogatives. For this reason, courts often decline to interfere in legitimate business
decisions of employers. In fact, labor laws discourage interference in employers
judgment concerning the conduct of their business. (Philippine Industrial
Security Agency Corporation vs. Aguinaldo, G. R. No. 149974, June 15,
2005; Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004).

An employer can regulate, generally without restraint, according to its

own discretion and judgment, every aspect of its business. (Deles, Jr.
vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 121348, March 9, 2000).
This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and
manage their enterprise effectively. (Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of
Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, 07 July 2004).
Employers have the freedom and prerogative, according to their
discretion and best judgment, to regulate and control all aspects of
employment in their business organizations. Such aspects of
employment include hiring, work assignments, working methods, time,
place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed,
supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees,
work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and
recall of workers. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. No.
115785, Aug. 4, 2000).

Thus, as held in one case, management retains the prerogative,

whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the working
hours of its employees. (Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
119205, 15 April 1998, 289 SCRA 86).

B. What is the extent of Managements prerogative to transfer or re-assign

workers?
a. Transfer; concept and meaning.
A transfer means a movement (1) from one position to another of equivalent
rank, level or salary, without a break in the service; or (2) from one office to
another within the same business establishment. (Sentinel Security Agency,
Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 122468, Sept. 3, 1998).
b. Transfer of employees, inherent right of management.
The Supreme Court has recognized and upheld the prerogative of
management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the
business establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution
of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not motivated by
discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or
demotion without sufficient cause. This is a privilege inherent in the
employers right to control and manage its enterprise effectively. (Mendoza
vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G. R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004; Benguet
Electric Cooperative vs. Fianza, G. R. No. 158606, March 9, 2004).
c. No vested right to position.
In OSS Security & Allied Services, Inc., vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 112752,
Feb. 9, 2000], the High Court ruled that an employee has a right to security
of tenure but this does not give her such a vested right in her
position as would deprive the employer of its prerogative to change
her assignment or transfer her where her service will be most
beneficial to the employers client. (See also Tan vs. NLRC, 299 SCRA
169, 180 [1998]).
d. Refusal to transfer.
An employee who refuses to be transferred, when such transfer is
valid, is guilty of insubordination. (Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel
vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 121621, May 3, 1999).
It constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order of an
employer. (Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Fianza, G. R. No.
158606, March 9, 2004).

 In Abbott Laboratories, Inc. vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 76959,

October 12, 1987], the dismissal of a medical representative who
acceded in his employment application to be assigned anywhere in the
Philippines, but later refused to be transferred from Manila to a
provincial assignment, was held valid. The reason is, when he applied
and was accepted for the job, he agreed to the policy of the company
regarding assignment anywhere in the Philippines as demanded by his
employers business operation.
C. Transfer in accordance with pre-determined and established office policy and
practice.
The employer has the right to transfer an employee to another office in
the exercise of sound business judgment and in accordance with predetermined and established office policy and practice. Particularly so
when no illicit, improper or underhanded purpose can be ascribed to
the employer and the objection to the transfer was solely on the
personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the
employee by virtue of the transfer. (Philippine Industrial Security
Agency vs. Dapiton, G.R. No. 127421, Dec. 8, 1999, 320 SCRA
124, 138)
D. Transfer may constitute constructive dismissal if the following are present:
The transfer of an employee may constitute constructive dismissal
when it amounts to an involuntary resignation resorted to when
continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay;
or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer
becomes unbearable to the employee. (Floren Hotel vs. NLRC, G.
R. No. 155264, May 6, 2005; Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of
Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004).

3. The elements of constructive dismissal is not present

I.

There was no cause for involuntary resignation on the part of the

employee and it would not render him impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely to work because he was transferred to dumaguete city which
is a livable city and for the purpose of saving the business thru her
expertise.

II.

In addition to this she was not demoted in rank and there was no
diminution of benefit because she was still a general manager only to
be transferred to another office owned by the same company.

III.

There was no clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by the

company that becomes unbearable for the employee because she was
transferred to dumaguete to test her abilities as general manager and
if she can meet and qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standard made known by the company to the petitioner at
the start of the employment