G.R. No. 128290 November 24, 1998
ELISEO B. TAN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, UNITED LABORATORIES INC., JULIO SISON, FRANCISCO PAMINTUAN, TAN WAN LIAN and DELFIN SAMSON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eliseo B. Tan was a sales supervisor for respondent United Laboratories Inc. (Unilab) assigned to the Bicol Region. In July 1990, upon the recommendation of his immediate supervisor, respondent Julio Sison, he was chosen to attend a six-month management training course in Manila. Upon his completion of the course, he returned to Bicol. Due to the abandonment of post by the salesman assigned to Sorsogon and the inability of the replacement to handle the accounts, causing a plunge in sales, Tan was temporarily assigned to Sorsogon to revitalize the market. Tan accepted but later complained that the assignment did not match his experience, training, and capabilities. He subsequently went on leave and, starting March 16, 1991, stopped reporting for work. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, alleging that the Sorsogon assignment removed his usual duties and responsibilities as sales supervisor and was a plot by respondent Sison, who suspected him of spearheading a protest letter. Unilab, during the period Tan refused to work, continued to pay his monthly salary and allowed him to retain the company vehicle. Unilab also expressed willingness to discuss a possible assignment to another area. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

ISSUE

Whether the temporary transfer of petitioner to Sorsogon constituted constructive dismissal.

RULING

No, the temporary transfer did not constitute constructive dismissal. The employer has the prerogative to transfer an employee when the interest of the business so requires. The transfer was not unreasonable, discriminatory, or attended by a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay. Tan retained his rank, performed the same functions, and his incentives were still based on regional sales. The transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative to address the critical sales situation in Sorsogon, a temporary remedial measure pending the hiring of a new salesman. The Court found no evidence of a plot to harass Tan, noting that Sison had recommended him for training, Unilab continued his pay and benefits during his absence, and offered to discuss alternative assignments. His refusal to obey a lawful transfer instruction constituted willful disobedience. However, the Court noted that Unilab failed to observe the twin requirements of due process in effecting his dismissal for said disobedience, warranting the imposition of an indemnity.