G.R. No. 75931, August 28, 1989
CASIANO S. SEDAYA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION and the PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Casiano S. Sedaya was hired by respondent Philippine Packing Corporation in 1960 as a research field worker at its Bukidnon pineapple plantation. In 1970, he was transferred to general crops operations in Misamis Oriental and was promoted to supervisor in 1974. In March 1982, the company phased out research activity in Misamis Oriental and verbally advised Sedaya of his reassignment back to the Bukidnon plantation, effective April 1, 1982. Instead of reporting, Sedaya filed successive leave applications, the last being for an indefinite period to settle alleged land problems. The company disapproved this final application as his leaves had reached the 45-day maximum ceiling.
While on unauthorized leave, Sedaya requested management to reconsider his transfer or, alternatively, declare his position redundant to grant him severance pay. The company refused, maintaining it was not terminating his services and his supervisory position remained available. Sedaya persisted in his absence. Consequently, the company charged him with abandonment in writing. Sedaya did not answer the charge nor attend the scheduled hearing. He was subsequently dismissed for abandonment effective June 10, 1982. Sedaya then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, praying for separation pay and backwages, but not reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner was validly dismissed for abandonment due to his refusal to accept his new assignment.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court recognized management’s prerogative to transfer an employee within the business establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and privileges. Sedaya’s reassignment was a legitimate exercise of this prerogative, motivated by the exigencies of the service after the phasing out of his research work in Misamis Oriental. The transfer did not constitute constructive dismissal, as his supervisory rank and corresponding privileges, including free housing with utilities, were maintained.
The Court found Sedaya’s refusal to report, based on personal reasons like land problems and family dislocation, unconvincing against the company’s operational needs. His subsequent unauthorized absences and failure to respond to the abandonment charge substantiated the company’s action. The labor arbiter’s initial order for a written memorandum of transfer was a fair solution, but Sedaya’s continued non-compliance justified dismissal. The Court denied awards of backwages or separation pay, as the company did not terminate him but he effectively abandoned his post. The petition was dismissed, with a final directive for the company to issue another written transfer order, giving Sedaya ten days to comply or face dismissal for cause without severance pay.