G.R. No. 163505; August 14, 2009
GUALBERTO AGUANZA, Petitioner, vs. ASIAN TERMINAL, INC., KEITH JAMES, RICHARD BARCLAY, and ATTY. RODOLFO CORVITE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gualberto Aguanza was employed by respondent Asian Terminal, Inc. (ATI) as a Derickman aboard the floating crane barge Bismark IV, which was based at the Port of Manila. His compensation included a basic salary, a monthly meal allowance, a fixed overtime pay of 16 hours, and a daily out-of-port allowance, but the latter two benefits were payable only when the barge was assigned outside Metro Manila. In September 1997, ATI temporarily assigned Bismark IV to Mariveles, Bataan, and subsequently made the transfer permanent effective October 1, 1997. ATI informed the barge’s crew that, due to the permanent transfer, they would no longer receive the out-of-port benefits. ATI offered new terms: a regular 40-hour workweek with overtime paid in excess of 8 hours daily and on weekends, but without the previous additional allowances.
Aguanza, along with other crew members, objected not to the transfer itself but to the removal of the allowances, insisting on working under the former terms. Eventually, all other crew members accepted the new arrangement. Aguanza, however, maintained his position and insisted on reporting for work in Manila, despite his barge being permanently stationed in Bataan. ATI did not allow him to time in at Manila, as his assigned workplace was in Bataan. Aguanza then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that ATI’s transfer of Bismark IV to Bataan was a valid exercise of management prerogative and did not constitute illegal dismissal or an unlawful diminution of benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The transfer of the barge’s base of operations was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative, inherent in the employer’s right to conduct its business efficiently. Aguanza’s employment contract explicitly stipulated his agreement to work in such place as ATI may assign him. The core of the dispute was the withdrawal of the fixed overtime pay and out-of-port allowances.
The Court ruled there was no illegal diminution of benefits. The subject allowances and fixed overtime were conditional supplements, not part of Aguanza’s basic salary. They were payable only when the barge was on an “out-of-port” assignment from its Manila base. The permanent transfer of the barge to Bataan changed its base port, thereby removing the condition that triggered the payment of these benefits. His basic salary remained unchanged. Consequently, ATI’s offer of new terms—compensating all actual overtime worked but without the previous conditional allowances—was valid. Aguanza’s refusal to report to his new assigned workplace in Bataan constituted abandonment, not illegal dismissal. The employer did not terminate him; he effectively severed the employment relationship by his refusal to comply with a lawful transfer order.