G.R. No. 172601; April 16, 2009
AILEEN G. HERIDA, Petitioner, vs. F & C PAWNSHOP and JEWELRY STORE/MARCELINO FLORETE, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aileen G. Herida was an employee of respondent F & C Pawnshop and Jewelry Store, owned by Marcelino Florete, Jr. She was hired as a sales clerk and later promoted to appraiser at the Bacolod City Branch. On August 1, 1998, management issued a memorandum directing her to report to the Guanco Branch in Iloilo City. Petitioner refused to follow this directive. Consequently, she was preventively suspended from work on August 10, 1998, for 15 days effective August 7, 1998, and was directed to report to her new assignment on August 24, 1998. On August 10, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of separation pay, 13th month pay, and damages. Management informed her of an investigation scheduled for September 7, 1998, which she failed to attend. In a letter dated September 7, 1998, management terminated her services on grounds of willful disobedience, insubordination, abandonment of work, and gross violation of company policy. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint for lack of merit, ruling she was not dismissed but deliberately refused a lawful order. The NLRC affirmed there was no illegal dismissal but awarded separation pay and service incentive leave pay due to her long service, later deleting the service incentive leave pay upon reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition, upholding management’s prerogative to transfer employees and ruling her refusal constituted willful disobedience, a just cause for dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s transfer from the Bacolod City Branch to the Iloilo City Branch was valid, and consequently, whether her dismissal was legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, with the MODIFICATION that the award of separation pay is deleted. The Court held that the transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Jurisprudence recognizes an employer’s right to transfer employees provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and privileges, and the action is not motivated by discrimination, bad faith, or punishment. Respondents had standing policies requiring employees to be single at hiring and willing to be assigned to any branch. Petitioner’s contention that marriage nullified her commitment to transfer was unfounded. The transfer was not shown to be unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial; travel time was about an hour by boat, and respondents offered to defray transportation and lodging expenses. There was no evidence of bad faith or a scheme to remove petitioner. Her refusal, based on personal inconvenience, constituted willful disobedience of a lawful order under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code, a just cause for dismissal. Therefore, she was not illegally dismissed and was not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, or separation pay. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, being supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.