This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| x x x x[50] The rule is that the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the ambit of the employer's prerogatives. The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employee's salary, benefits and other privileges.[51] | |||||
|
2006-01-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We find Company Rule 8 to be a valid exercise of management prerogative and thus a lawful order. Respondents were expected to abide by them [21] and their transgression, despite clear warnings, provided just cause for the termination of their employment. | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's transfer was made in pursuit of respondent's policy to "familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing internal control system"[33] of all officers and employees. We have previously held that employees may be transferred -- based on their qualifications, aptitudes and competencies -- to positions in which they can function with maximum benefit to the company.[34] There appears no justification for denying an employer the right to transfer employees to expand their competence and maximize their full potential for the advancement of the establishment. Petitioner was not singled out; other employees were also reassigned without their express consent. | |||||