GR 172724; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172724 August 23, 2010
PHARMACIA AND UPJOHN, INC. (now PFIZER PHILIPPINES, INC.), ASHLEY MORRIS, ALEDA CHU, JANE MONTILLA & FELICITO GARCIA, Petitioners, vs. RICARDO P. ALBAYDA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ricardo Albayda, Jr., a long-time employee and District Sales Manager for petitioners, was reassigned from his district in Bacolod City (Western Visayas) to Cagayan de Oro City (Northern Mindanao) as part of a company-wide sales force realignment. Albayda objected, citing family dislocation, his wife’s established business in Bacolod, and his unfamiliarity with the new territory, which he perceived as a pretext for dismissal. He repeatedly requested reassignment back to Western Visayas or, alternatively, to a newly opened position in Metro Manila. The company denied his requests, insisting the transfer was a legitimate business decision to utilize his expertise in an underperforming district and for his professional development. After a period of sick leave, Albayda was declared fit to work but refused to report to Cagayan de Oro. Consequently, petitioners terminated his employment for willful disobedience.
ISSUE
Whether the termination of Albayda for willful disobedience was valid, considering the employer’s right to transfer employees versus the employee’s right to security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was illegal. The legal logic balances the employer’s managerial prerogative to transfer employees with the requisites for a valid transfer. While an employer generally has the right to assign employees based on operational needs, such a transfer must be reasonable, made in good faith, and not constitute a constructive dismissal. The Court found the transfer unreasonable. Albayda, after over two decades in the Visayas, faced significant personal and financial hardship, including the loss of his wife’s income and additional living expenses, without any corresponding financial assistance from the company. The offer of a Metro Manila assignment, made only after his persistent refusal, demonstrated the availability of a suitable alternative, rendering the insistence on the Mindanao transfer unreasonable. His refusal to comply with an unreasonable order is not willful disobedience warranting dismissal. The termination, therefore, lacked just cause and constituted an unlawful deprivation of his right to security of tenure.