|
RURAL BANK OF CANTILAN, INC., and
WILLIAM HOTCHKISS III,
Petitioners, -versus- ARJAY RONNEL H. JULVE, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 169750 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, *AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: February
27, 2007 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
For
our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (Twenty Second Division, Cagayan de Oro City) dated
September 23, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 77206 and its Resolution of September 6,
2005.
The facts of this case as found by the Court of Appeals
are:
On
On June 18, 2001, William Hotchkiss III (also a petitioner),
president of petitioner bank, issued a memorandum addressed to all its branch
managers informing them of the abolition of the positions of planning and marketing
officer and remedial officer; that this was undertaken in accordance with the
bank’s Personnel Streamlining Program; and that the operations officer shall absorb
the functions of the abolished offices.
On
I am withdrawing my signature on this appointment because I feel that this is a demotion (on the position itself and allowances) and not a lateral transfer as what the President told me yesterday. I believe I do not deserve a demotion.
Thank
you.
On
On
The
following day, respondent submitted his written explanation, which partly reads:
I regret to say that I am not accepting the position of Asst. Branch Head of RBCI-Madrid Branch for the very reason that the papers were not left with me by the Admin. Officer after she let me read them. Considering that Asst. Branch Head is a newly-created position, I requested her for a copy of the said papers first so I can thoroughly study them before making my decision. But she immediately took them back from me after I told her about this.
On
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby entered:
1. Declaring complainant as constructively illegally dismissed;
2. Ordering respondents to reinstate complainant to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights with full backwages from the time his salary was withheld from him up to the time he is actually reinstated;
3.
To pay complainant his partial backwages in the amount
of P57,165.33 computed up to the date of this decision as follows:
A. BACKWAGES FROM 16 Oct 2001
to
P12,192.50 + 1,000 x 4
= P52,768.00
Plus P52,768/13
(13th mo. Pay) = P4,397.33
TOTAL BACKWAGES P57,165.33
and
4.
Ordering respondents to pay complainant moral and
exemplary damages in the total amount of P100,000.00
plus P15,718.53, as attorney’s fees which is equivalent to 10% of the
total monetary award.
Complainant’s other claims are
dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal by petitioners, the NLRC, in
its Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the appealed decision is Vacated
and Set Aside. In lieu thereof, a new judgment is rendered dismissing the
above-entitled case for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.
The NLRC
held that respondent’s reassignment is not a demotion. There was neither
diminution in functions and pay. Thus, he
was not constructively dismissed from employment. Moreover, respondent himself admitted that he
decided not to report for work at his new station. Yet, he continued receiving his
salaries and allowances.
Respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC.
Respondent
then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 77206.
On
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The NLRC Resolutions
dated
SO
ORDERED.
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration. However, it was denied by the appellate court
in its Resolution dated
The only
issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that
respondent was constructively dismissed from employment.
In
resolving this issue, we rely on the following guide posts:
Under the
doctrine of management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to
regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time,
place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of
workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees.[2] The only limitations to the exercise of this
prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and
substantial justice.
While
the law imposes many obligations upon the employer, nonetheless, it also protects
the employer’s right to expect from its employees not only good performance,
adequate work, and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty.[3] In fact,
the Labor Code does not excuse employees from complying with valid company
policies and reasonable regulations for their governance and guidance.
Concerning
the transfer of employees, these are the following jurisprudential guidelines:
(a) a transfer is a movement from one position to another of equivalent rank,
level or salary without break in the service or a lateral movement from one
position to another of equivalent rank or salary;[4]
(b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an employee for
legitimate business purposes;[5]
(c) a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination or bad
faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion without
sufficient cause;[6] (d) the
employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable,
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.[7]
Constructive
dismissal is defined as “quitting when continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as the offer of employment involves a
demotion in rank and diminution of pay.”[8]
In light
of the above guidelines, we agree with the NLRC in ruling that respondent was
not constructively dismissed from employment.
Respondent
contends that the abolition of his position as planning and marketing officer and
his appointment as bookkeeper I and assistant branch head of the Madrid Branch
is a demotion. However, a look at the
functions of his new position shows the contrary. The bookkeeper and assistant branch head is
not only charged with preparing financial reports and monthly bank
reconciliations, he is also the head of the Accounting Department of a branch. Under any standard, these are supervisory and
administrative tasks which entail great responsibility. Moreover, respondent’s transfer did not decrease
his pay.
Nor was respondent’s
transfer motivated by ill-will or prejudice on the part of petitioners. His position was not the only one abolished pursuant
to the bank’s Personnel Streamlining Program. We recall that the position of remedial
officer was likewise abolished. Petitioners’ reason was to acquire savings
from the salaries it would pay to full-time personnel in these positions.
Finally,
we note that despite respondent’s refusal to accept the new appointment, petitioners
did not dismiss him. Rather, it was he who
opted to terminate his employment when he purposely failed to report for work.
In fine,
we hold that the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that respondent was constructively
dismissed from employment.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77206. The Resolutions
of the NLRC dated
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice
Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
(On official leave) ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
[1] Rollo, pp. 89-102. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
[2] Baybay
Water District v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 147248-29,
[3] Durban Apartments Corp. v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 167318,
[4] Dosch
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 51182,
[5] Genuino
Ice Company, Inc. v. Magpantay,
G.R. No. 147790,
[6] Phil. Telegraph & Telephone Corp. v. Laplana, G.R. No. 76645, July 23, 1991, 199 SCRA 485, 491.
[7] Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samaniego, G.R. Nos. 146653-54 & 147407-08, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 611, 620; Globe-Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, G.R. No. 150092, September 27, 2002, 390 SCRA 201, 213.
[8] Mobil Protective & Detective Agency
v. Ompad, G.R. No. 159195,