G.R. No. 216716 . November 17, 2021
JOSE EDWIN G. ESICO, PETITIONER, VS. ALPHALAND CORPORATION AND ALPHALAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Edwin G. Esico, a retired lieutenant colonel and licensed pilot, was initially hired by PhilWeb Corporation, part of respondents’ group of companies, as a Risk & Security Management Officer (RSMO) under a letter-proposal dated March 19, 2010, with a monthly basic pay of P90,000.00 and regular employee status from day one. He signed this offer on October 28, 2010. Concurrently, on April 19, 2010, respondents Alphaland Corporation and Alphaland Development, Inc. engaged Esico as a Helicopter Pilot, reporting to their Chief Pilot, with his compensation to be paid by PhilWeb. He underwent flight training in the USA in May 2011 at respondents’ expense. Despite verbal and written follow-ups regarding his formal employment status as a pilot, including an email on June 6, 2011, respondents did not respond positively. On August 22, 2011, he received a job offer sheet from Alphaland Corporation as a pilot with a monthly gross of P115,000.00, which he did not sign due to disagreements over terms. Subsequently, on February 29, 2012, he received a memorandum reassigning him from the Aviation Department to the Security Department under a new superior, which he protested as a demotion. Following this, his flying duties were reduced, and he was excluded from flight schedules and training. He filed complaints for constructive dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Jose Edwin G. Esico was constructively dismissed by respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Esico was constructively dismissed. The reassignment from the Aviation Department to the Security Department, coupled with the reduction and eventual cessation of his flying duties, constituted a demotion and rendered his position insufferable. This reassignment was not a legitimate exercise of management prerogative but was done in bad faith, as it effectively stripped him of his functions as a pilot without valid cause. The Court found that respondents failed to prove that the reassignment was for a legitimate business purpose. Consequently, Esico, as a regular employee, was illegally dismissed. He is entitled to full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees. The Court modified the National Labor Relations Commission’s decision by awarding backwages from the time of dismissal until finality of the decision, and separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service.