GR 175170; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175170 ; September 5, 2012
MISAMIS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE (MORESCO II), Petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO M. CAGALAWAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Virgilio Cagalawan was a permanent Disconnection Lineman for petitioner MORESCO II. In May 2002, he was transferred from his position as Acting Head of the disconnection crew in Balingasag to a regular crew member position in Gingoog City, a different sub-office. MORESCO II cited “exigency of the service” as the reason. Cagalawan protested, claiming the transfer was a demotion, caused him significant additional daily travel expenses, and was done in bad faith in retaliation for his affidavit supporting a co-employee’s case against the company. He eventually stopped reporting for work and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal.
Before the Labor Arbiter, only Cagalawan submitted his position paper and supporting evidence, as MORESCO II failed to file its own despite due notice. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cagalawan, finding constructive dismissal. The NLRC reversed on appeal, accepting MORESCO II’s belatedly submitted position paper and finding the transfer a valid management prerogative. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, rejecting the belated submission.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in admitting MORESCO II’s position paper and evidence filed only on appeal, and in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. While technical rules of procedure are relaxed in labor cases, this policy cannot justify a blatant disregard of the rules without a valid reason. The NLRC Rules mandate the simultaneous filing of position papers before the Labor Arbiter. MORESCO II offered no compelling justification for its failure to comply, thereby forfeiting its right to present evidence. The NLRC’s act of admitting the belated position paper and evidence deprived Cagalawan of due process, as he was not given the opportunity to rebut them at the proper stage.
On the merits, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of constructive dismissal. Management’s right to transfer must be exercised in good faith, without grave inconvenience or demotion to the employee. Here, the transfer resulted in a loss of a supervisory designation and imposed a substantial financial burden on Cagalawan, effectively rendering his continued employment unreasonable. MORESCO II failed to discharge its burden of proving the transfer was for a legitimate business reason, as it did not substantiate the alleged “exigency of the service.” The retaliatory motive, implied from the timing following Cagalawan’s affidavit against the company, further tainted the transfer with bad faith. Thus, the transfer constituted an illegal constructive dismissal.