G.R. No. 143604 ; June 20, 2003
PRISCO LANZADERAS, et al., Petitioners, vs. AMETHYST SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were security guards employed by respondent Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc., and assigned to its clients, sister companies Resin Industrial Chemical Corp. (RICC) and Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, Inc. (PICMW). The service contracts between Amethyst and RICC/PICMW stipulated that security guards must be between 25 to 45 years old. In January 1998, upon contract renewal, RICC reminded Amethyst of this age condition. Consequently, Amethyst issued relief orders to petitioners, who were over 45, effective February 1, 1998, instructing them to report to its main office for reassignment.
Petitioners did not report as ordered. In April 1998, Amethyst issued a new detail order assigning petitioners as firewatch guards at the same compound, warning that failure to report would be considered abandonment. Petitioners instead filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, finding constructive dismissal due to demotion and holding all respondents solidarily liable. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, holding the relief was a valid business prerogative and petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their jobs.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the NLRC. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the NLRC’s decision was based on substantial evidence and applicable law. The relief of petitioners from their posts was a legitimate management prerogative arising from a lawful stipulation in the service contract with the client companies. Amethyst offered reassignment, first to its office and later as firewatch guards at the same location, which constituted a valid alternative employment.
Petitioners’ refusal to accept the new assignments or report for duty constituted abandonment, not constructive dismissal. There was no evidence of demotion, as the offer to work as firewatch guards was a lateral transfer to a comparable position necessitated by the client’s contractual requirements. The employer’s right to transfer employees for legitimate business reasons is inherent, provided it is done without bad faith or diminution in rank and pay. The NLRC correctly applied these principles, and its factual findings, being supported by evidence, are final and binding.