GR 158606; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158606 , March 9, 2004
Benguet Electric Cooperative and Gerardo P. Verzosa, petitioners, vs. Josephine Fianza, respondent.
FACTS
Josephine Fianza, employed by Benguet Electric Cooperative (BENECO) since 1979, held the position of Property Custodian. In June 1999, BENECO’s General Manager, Gerardo Verzosa, issued an Office Order detailing Fianza to the Finance Department to assume the duties of a Bill Distributor, citing “exigency of the service” and stating there would be no change in her salary. Fianza protested in writing, arguing the reassignment amounted to a demotion, involved more strenuous and dangerous conditions, and was without justifiable reason. Management insisted the transfer was a valid exercise of prerogative, part of a reorganization where the Property Custodian role might be phased out, and warned Fianza that non-compliance would constitute insubordination.
Fianza filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. She continued reporting to her old post but was subsequently barred from performing her duties and her salary was withheld. She eventually stopped reporting for work. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding constructive dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting BENECO’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the reassignment of Fianza from Property Custodian to Bill Distributor constituted constructive dismissal.
RULING
No, the reassignment did not constitute constructive dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC’s dismissal of the complaint. Management possesses the inherent right to transfer employees for legitimate business purposes, provided it is exercised in good faith and does not result in demotion in rank or diminution in pay, benefits, and other privileges. Here, the transfer was implemented due to exigency of service and as part of a sound business decision to improve efficiency, with no reduction in Fianza’s salary. The Court found that the differences in educational qualifications and duties between the two positions did not, by themselves, establish bad faith or a demotion in rank, as both positions carried the same salary grade. The employer’s act was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Fianza’s refusal to comply with the lawful transfer order constituted willful disobedience, which is a just cause for termination under the Labor Code. Consequently, her claim of constructive dismissal failed.