GR 106107; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106107 June 2, 1994
Agustin Chu, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Victorias Milling Company, Inc., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Agustin Chu retired from private respondent Victorias Milling Company, Inc. upon reaching age sixty but was rehired under a one-year “Special Contract of Employment” commencing August 1, 1988, as Head of the Warehousing, Sugar, Shipping and Marine Department with a monthly salary of P6,941.00. Pursuant to company memoranda dated December 12, 1988 and January 16, 1989, which implemented organizational changes and personnel rotation, petitioner was transferred to the Sugar Sales Department. Petitioner protested the transfer, and upon denial of his reconsideration request, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative, involved no change in rank or salary, was not done in bad faith, and caused no prejudice to petitioner. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the transfer of petitioner from the Warehousing, Sugar, Shipping and Marine Department to the Sugar Sales Department constituted a constructive dismissal, in violation of the “Special Contract of Employment” and management prerogative principles.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s decision. The Court ruled that the transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative. The right to transfer employees is an inherent management right, subject to limitations by law, contract, or principles of fair play and justice. The “Special Contract of Employment” did not contain a clear stipulation waiving the company’s right to transfer or reassign petitioner; merely specifying his position does not constitute such a waiver. The transfer was found to be in good faith, non-discriminatory, and did not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, or privileges. Petitioner’s claim of inconvenience was insufficient to override these findings. Therefore, no constructive dismissal occurred.