G.R. No. 113366-68 July 24, 1997
Gregorio Isabelo, Virgilio Labadia, Antonio Mendoza, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division), United Cocoa Plantation, Inc., Demosthenes Revil and Cayetano Sales, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were workers at the cocoa plantation of private respondent United Cocoa Plantation, Inc. (UCPI) in Balabagan, Lanao del Sur. Management requested them, along with several other workers, to transfer to its other undermanned project sites at Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat. Petitioners received three similar memoranda dated October 28, November 15, and December 20, 1988, which they ignored, claiming the transfers were a ploy to interfere with the workers’ right to self-organization. Due to their continued refusal, they received a memorandum on January 4, 1989, considering them to have abandoned their employment.
Earlier, on September 26, 1988, the UCPI Workers Union was formed, and it filed a petition for certification election on November 18, 1988. The Union failed to garner the necessary votes in the certification election held on December 22, 1988.
After the second transfer memorandum, nine workers, all Union officers including petitioners, filed complaints for unfair labor practice and nonpayment of wages on November 24, 1988. Six complainants settled and withdrew. The remaining complaints of petitioners were consolidated. The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded separation pay. The NLRC initially reversed this but, upon reconsideration, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Is the transfer of workers from one work site to another a valid exercise of management prerogative?

RULING

Yes. The transfer of workers was a valid exercise of management prerogative. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision, holding that the transfer and hiring of workers is the employer’s prerogative. Petitioners were asked to transfer to augment the workforce at other sites, with UCPI offering relocation allowances, covering transfer expenses, and providing living quarters. Petitioners had authorized such reassignments in their employment contracts. Their right to self-organization was not violated, as they had formed and registered a union and held a certification election. The Court found petitioners guilty of willful insubordination for refusing the lawful transfer orders but disagreed with the finding of abandonment, as there was no clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The petition was dismissed.