GR 168159; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168159 . August 19, 2005
NORKIS TRADING CO., INC., ATTY. NORBERTO QUISUMBING, JR., RACQUEL LICSI, EMMANUEL S. TAMAYO and NICHOL JUDE THADDEUS JURIDICO, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MA. ARLENE C. GNILO, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Ma. Arlene C. Gnilo was a regular employee of petitioner Norkis Trading Co., Inc., holding the position of Acting Senior Branch Control Officer for the Bicol Region. Following an audit and an internal investigation for alleged negligence, she was reassigned from her regional post to the company’s main office in Mandaluyong City pending resolution of her case. Gnilo repeatedly requested reassignment back to Naga City, citing her family circumstances, but these were denied. The company later withheld her travel allowances.
Finding her situation at the main office unbearable, with no substantive work and only menial tasks assigned, Gnilo returned to the Naga City branch. Management, however, instructed the branch to deny her entry and access to records. She was then served a directive to explain why she should not be dismissed for abandonment and to refund travel allowances previously received, prompting her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that Gnilo was constructively dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of constructive dismissal. The legal logic centers on the employer’s failure to prove the validity and good faith of the employee’s transfer. While management possesses the prerogative to transfer employees, this right must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, must be for legitimate business interests, and must not result in demotion, diminution in pay, or other circumstances implying forced resignation.
Here, the transfer of Gnilo from a supervisory regional position to the head office, where she was given inconsequential tasks, effectively rendered her a “floating employee” without definite assignments. This constituted a constructive dismissal, as the transfer was not shown to be reasonable or necessary for the company’s operation but appeared to be a punitive measure following the internal investigation and her husband’s separate labor case against the company. The subsequent acts of withholding allowances, barring her from her former workplace, and threatening her with abandonment solidified the finding of an involuntary severance. The employer failed to discharge its burden of proving the transfer was in good faith and for just cause. Consequently, Gnilo was entitled to reinstatement, full backwages, and, due to the oppressive manner of dismissal, moral and exemplary damages, which the Court reduced to Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) each.