Lawyerly

GR No. 183860

2014-01-15

RODOLFO LABORTE v. PAGSANJAN TOURISM CONSUMERS’ COOPERATIVE

REYES, J.

(2) The petitioners also claimed that bidding out to private parties of the business operations in the PTA Complex is a legal requirement and a mandate given to every revenue-generating government entity like the PTA. Thus, since it is only exercising its mandate and has acted in good faith, petitioner PTA believes that it has not incurred any liability against respondents.[62] Citing Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban,[63] the petitioners argued that: "[L]abor laws discourage interference in employers' judgments concerning the conduct of their business. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of [the] employers."[64] In other words, the petitioners likened the relationship between PTA and the respondents to that of an employer and employee;

GR No. 174208

2012-01-25

JONATHAN V. MORALES v. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL

PEREZ, J.

Admittedly, the right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[42] By management prerogative is meant the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of workers.[43] Although jurisprudence recognizes said management prerogative, it has been ruled that the exercise thereof, while ordinarily not interfered with,[44] is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of fair play and justice.[45] Thus, an employer may transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another, 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.[46] Indeed, having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised.[47]

GR No. 182848

2011-10-05

EMIRATE SECURITY v. GLENDA M. MENESE

BRION, J.

Citing Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban,[35] the petitioners argue that the transfer was undertaken in the exercise of management prerogative in the pursuit of their legitimate interests. They submit that Menese refused to comply with the valid transfer orders they issued, making her liable for abandonment and insubordination. They argue that nothing on record shows that she was illegally dismissed as no dismissal had been imposed on her.

GR No. 177816

2011-08-03

NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. v. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES

PEREZ, J.

Considering that even labor laws discourage intrusion in the employers' judgment concerning the conduct of their business, courts often decline to interfere in their legitimate business decisions,[37] absent showing of illegality, bad faith or arbitrariness. Indeed, the right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[38] The record shows that Leynes filed the complaint for actual illegal dismissal from which the case originated on 22 February 2002 or immediately upon being placed on floating status as a consequence of NHPI's hiring of a new Property Manager for the Project. The rule is settled, however, that "off-detailing" is not equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time and that it is only when such a "floating status" lasts for more than six months that the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed.[39] A complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six-month and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered as prematurely filed.[40]

GR No. 181146

2011-01-26

UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. NLRC

CARPIO, J.

The law protects both the welfare of employees and the prerogatives of management.[31] Courts will not interfere with prerogatives of management on the discipline of employees, as long as they do not violate labor laws, collective bargaining agreements if any, and general principles of fairness and justice.[32]

GR No. 163091

2010-10-06

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another - 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. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[24]

GR No. 161615

2009-01-30

ARNULFO O. ENDICO v. QUANTUM FOODS DISTRIBUTION CENTER

CARPIO, J.

Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business.[27] For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.[28] The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.[29]

GR No. 164804

2009-01-30

VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In fine, we find that Triumph's reorganization was intended to improve management operations especially in the light of the poor sales performance of the company during that period. The act of management in reorganizing the sales department in order to achieve its objectives is a legitimate exercise of its management prerogatives, barring any showing of bad faith which is absent in the instant case. Indeed, labor laws discourage interference in employers' judgments concerning the conduct of their business. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.[46]

GR NO. 169570

2007-03-02

RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Again, we are not persuaded. We are not unaware of the statutory rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the onus probandi to show that the employee's separation from employment is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[38] It bears stressing, however, that this legal principle presupposes that there is indeed an involuntary separation from employment and the facts attendant to such forced separation was clearly established.

GR NO. 152689

2005-10-12

PHILIPPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ALFREDO S. PAGUIO

QUISUMBING, J.

Nonetheless, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, there are limits to the management prerogative. While it may be conceded that management is in the best position to know its operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be utilized to circumvent the law and public policy on labor and social justice. That prerogative accorded management should not defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist: to balance the conflicting interests of labor and management. By its very nature, management prerogative must be exercised always with the principles of fair play and justice.[14] In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits.[15] The employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer of the employee has complied with the foregoing test.[16]

GR NO. 149974

2005-06-15

PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogative. For this reason, courts often decline to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.[19] In fact, labor laws discourage interference in employers' judgment concerning the conduct of their business.[20]

GR NO. 149974

2005-06-15

PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

By transferring respondent to the Malabon City FEBTC Branch, petitioner resorted to constructive dismissal. A transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when the transfer is unreasonable, unlikely, inconvenient, impossible, or prejudicial to the employee,[22] as in this case. It is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.[23]

GR NO. 149974

2005-06-15

PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for just and valid grounds, such as genuine business necessity.[24] The employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salary and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.[25]

GR NO. 155264

2005-05-06

FLOREN HOTEL v. NLRC

QUISUMBING, J.

We are not persuaded by petitioners' contention. For the transfer of the employee to be considered a valid exercise of management prerogatives, the employer must show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; neither would it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to discharge this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as in an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay.[42]

GR No. 156963

2004-11-11

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We do not agree in this finding of the Labor Arbiter. It may be true that in the transfer of respondent from the Pensions Department to the Legal Department, there was no demotion in rank nor diminution of the salaries, benefits and privileges. But this is not the only standard that must be satisfied in order to substantiate the transfer. In the pursuit of its legitimate business interests, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another 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.[11]

GR No. 156963

2004-11-11

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In a long line of decisions,[24] we have held that the right and privilege of the employer to exercise the so-called management prerogative is recognized, and the courts will not interfere with it. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[25] In the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC,[26] we explained the test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees, as follows:But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.

	GR No. 183860 2014-01-15	RODOLFO LABORTE v. PAGSANJAN TOURISM CONSUMERS’ COOPERATIVE REYES, J.
(2) The petitioners also claimed that bidding out to private parties of the business operations in the PTA Complex is a legal requirement and a mandate given to every revenue-generating government entity like the PTA. Thus, since it is only exercising its mandate and has acted in good faith, petitioner PTA believes that it has not incurred any liability against respondents.[62] Citing Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban,[63] the petitioners argued that: "[L]abor laws discourage interference in employers' judgments concerning the conduct of their business. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of [the] employers."[64] In other words, the petitioners likened the relationship between PTA and the respondents to that of an employer and employee;
	GR No. 174208 2012-01-25	JONATHAN V. MORALES v. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL PEREZ, J.
Admittedly, the right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[42] By management prerogative is meant the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of workers.[43] Although jurisprudence recognizes said management prerogative, it has been ruled that the exercise thereof, while ordinarily not interfered with,[44] is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of fair play and justice.[45] Thus, an employer may transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another, 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.[46] Indeed, having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised.[47]
	GR No. 182848 2011-10-05	EMIRATE SECURITY v. GLENDA M. MENESE BRION, J.
Citing Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban,[35] the petitioners argue that the transfer was undertaken in the exercise of management prerogative in the pursuit of their legitimate interests. They submit that Menese refused to comply with the valid transfer orders they issued, making her liable for abandonment and insubordination. They argue that nothing on record shows that she was illegally dismissed as no dismissal had been imposed on her.
	GR No. 177816 2011-08-03	NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. v. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES PEREZ, J.
Considering that even labor laws discourage intrusion in the employers' judgment concerning the conduct of their business, courts often decline to interfere in their legitimate business decisions,[37] absent showing of illegality, bad faith or arbitrariness. Indeed, the right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[38] The record shows that Leynes filed the complaint for actual illegal dismissal from which the case originated on 22 February 2002 or immediately upon being placed on floating status as a consequence of NHPI's hiring of a new Property Manager for the Project. The rule is settled, however, that "off-detailing" is not equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time and that it is only when such a "floating status" lasts for more than six months that the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed.[39] A complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six-month and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered as prematurely filed.[40]
	GR No. 181146 2011-01-26	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. NLRC CARPIO, J.
The law protects both the welfare of employees and the prerogatives of management.[31] Courts will not interfere with prerogatives of management on the discipline of employees, as long as they do not violate labor laws, collective bargaining agreements if any, and general principles of fairness and justice.[32]
	GR No. 163091 2010-10-06	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another - 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. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.[24]
	GR No. 161615 2009-01-30	ARNULFO O. ENDICO v. QUANTUM FOODS DISTRIBUTION CENTER CARPIO, J.
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business.[27] For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.[28] The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.[29]
	GR No. 164804 2009-01-30	VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In fine, we find that Triumph's reorganization was intended to improve management operations especially in the light of the poor sales performance of the company during that period. The act of management in reorganizing the sales department in order to achieve its objectives is a legitimate exercise of its management prerogatives, barring any showing of bad faith which is absent in the instant case. Indeed, labor laws discourage interference in employers' judgments concerning the conduct of their business. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.[46]
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Again, we are not persuaded. We are not unaware of the statutory rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the onus probandi to show that the employee's separation from employment is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[38] It bears stressing, however, that this legal principle presupposes that there is indeed an involuntary separation from employment and the facts attendant to such forced separation was clearly established.
	GR NO. 152689 2005-10-12	PHILIPPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ALFREDO S. PAGUIO QUISUMBING, J.
Nonetheless, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, there are limits to the management prerogative. While it may be conceded that management is in the best position to know its operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be utilized to circumvent the law and public policy on labor and social justice. That prerogative accorded management should not defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist: to balance the conflicting interests of labor and management. By its very nature, management prerogative must be exercised always with the principles of fair play and justice.[14] In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits.[15] The employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer of the employee has complied with the foregoing test.[16]
	GR NO. 149974 2005-06-15	PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogative. For this reason, courts often decline to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.[19] In fact, labor laws discourage interference in employers' judgment concerning the conduct of their business.[20]
	GR NO. 149974 2005-06-15	PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
By transferring respondent to the Malabon City FEBTC Branch, petitioner resorted to constructive dismissal. A transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when the transfer is unreasonable, unlikely, inconvenient, impossible, or prejudicial to the employee,[22] as in this case. It is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.[23]
	GR NO. 149974 2005-06-15	PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for just and valid grounds, such as genuine business necessity.[24] The employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salary and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.[25]
	GR NO. 155264 2005-05-06	FLOREN HOTEL v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
We are not persuaded by petitioners' contention. For the transfer of the employee to be considered a valid exercise of management prerogatives, the employer must show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; neither would it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to discharge this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as in an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay.[42]
	GR No. 156963 2004-11-11	PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not agree in this finding of the Labor Arbiter. It may be true that in the transfer of respondent from the Pensions Department to the Legal Department, there was no demotion in rank nor diminution of the salaries, benefits and privileges. But this is not the only standard that must be satisfied in order to substantiate the transfer. In the pursuit of its legitimate business interests, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another 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.[11]
	GR No. 156963 2004-11-11	PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a long line of decisions,[24] we have held that the right and privilege of the employer to exercise the so-called management prerogative is recognized, and the courts will not interfere with it. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[25] In the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC,[26] we explained the test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees, as follows:But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.

ELMER M. MENDOZA v. RURAL BANK OF LUCBAN