G.R. No. 187188 ; June 27, 2012
SALVADOR O. MOJAR, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. AGRO COMMERCIAL SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY, INC., ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were security guards employed by respondent agency and assigned to various Bank of Commerce branches in Northern Luzon. In May 2002, they were relieved from their posts and ordered to report to new assignments in Metro Manila. Petitioners failed to report, contending the reassignment was a retaliatory scheme for their earlier salary differential claim and was inconvenient and prejudicial due to additional living expenses. Respondent agency subsequently required them to explain their absence, which they ignored. In 2005, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, a decision affirmed by the NLRC with the modification of dismissing the complaint against the bank.
Respondent agency filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Petitioners later moved to annul the CA proceedings, arguing the NLRC decision had attained finality due to the belated filing of the petition and defective certification of non-forum shopping. They also claimed they were not properly served a copy of the petition, as their former counsel had passed away. The CA granted the petition, reversing the NLRC, ruling the transfer was a valid management prerogative and petitioners’ refusal constituted willful disobedience and abandonment, though it awarded nominal damages for procedural due process violation. The CA denied the motion to annul.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the petition and in ruling that petitioners were not illegally dismissed but were validly dismissed for just causes, albeit without due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On procedural grounds, the Court found that the CA validly acquired jurisdiction. The alleged defects in the petition’s filing, including the proof of service for the motion for extension, were not fatal. The requirement for the full names and actual addresses of parties under the Rules of Court refers to the addresses stated in the petition’s caption, not the addresses for service, which are those of counsel. Service upon the counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the death of a counsel does not automatically suspend the period to file an appeal; the party must appoint a new counsel who must formally appear. Petitioners failed to do this promptly.
On the substantive merits, the Court upheld the CA’s finding that the transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative. The employer has the right to transfer employees for legitimate business needs, provided it is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial. The reassignment did not involve a demotion or diminution in pay. Petitioners’ mere inconvenience and added expenses, without proof of bad faith or ill motive on the part of the employer, were insufficient to invalidate the transfer. Their outright refusal to comply with a lawful order constituted willful disobedience, a just cause for termination under Article 297 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code. However, the employer’s failure to observe the twin-notice requirement warranted the award of nominal damages for violation of procedural due process.