G.R. No. 212082 , November 24, 2021
ASIAN MARINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ALLEN P. CASERES, EMILYN O. TUDIO, JESSIE LADICA, AND VERMELYN PALOMARES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Asian Marine Transport Corporation hired respondents Jessie Ladica, Allen Caseres, Vermelyn Palomares, and Emilyn Tudio on various dates between 2003 and 2006, assigning them to different vessels. On December 8, 2007, Asian Marine transferred the respondents and two other employees to other workstations effective December 17, 2007. The respondents refused the transfer, claiming it would cause additional living expenses and a diminution in pay without relocation assistance. They also alleged the transfer was a retaliatory act because they had joined in filing a labor standards complaint against the company and refused to sign a compromise agreement. Asian Marine subsequently dismissed the respondents on grounds of abandonment. The respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling the transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative and not motivated by bad faith. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the labor tribunals, holding that Asian Marine failed to prove the transfer was required by business exigency, making it tantamount to constructive dismissal, and that the respondents’ failure to report was not abandonment. Asian Marine filed the present Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the labor tribunals’ unanimous finding that the disputed transfer of employees was a valid and legitimate exercise of petitioner’s management prerogative.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied Asian Marine’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. While management has a wide latitude of prerogative in conducting its affairs, this prerogative must be exercised in good faith, for the advancement of the employer’s interest, and not to defeat or circumvent employee rights. It must not be exercised in a manner that is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employees. In this case, Asian Marine failed to discharge its burden of proving that the transfer was a valid exercise of its management prerogative. The evidence did not substantiate its claim that the transfer was a long-standing company practice or that it was necessary for legitimate business interests. The timing of the transfer, following the respondents’ participation in a labor complaint, and the lack of evidence showing a genuine operational need for the specific reassignments, supported the finding of constructive dismissal. The respondents’ refusal to comply with an unjust transfer order did not constitute willful disobedience or abandonment. Therefore, the respondents were illegally dismissed and are entitled to reinstatement, backwages, separation pay if reinstatement is not feasible, and attorney’s fees.