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 plantation. In 1970, he was transferred to Misamis Oriental and later 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 Bukidnon, effective April 1, 1982. Instead of reporting, Sedaya filed successive leave applications, the last being for an indefinite period to settle land problems. The company disapproved this final application as his leaves had reached the 45-day maximum ceiling.
While on unauthorized leave, Sedaya sought reconsideration of his transfer or, alternatively, to have his position declared redundant for severance pay. The company refused, maintaining his position was still available. Sedaya persisted in his absence. Consequently, the company charged him with abandonment in writing. After Sedaya failed to answer the charge or attend the scheduled hearing, he was dismissed effective June 10, 1982. Sedaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, praying for separation pay and backwages, but not reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner could be validly dismissed for refusing to accept his new assignment.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court recognized management’s prerogative to transfer employees within the business establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and privileges. The transfer of Sedaya 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. His reassignment to Bukidnon, where he would retain his supervisory rank and receive equivalent housing benefits, did not constitute constructive dismissal.
The Court rejected Sedaya’s reasons for non-compliance, such as land problems and family dislocation, as insufficient to override management’s right to implement operational policies. Since the transfer was valid, Sedaya’s refusal to report constituted willful disobedience or abandonment. The labor arbiter’s directive for a written memorandum of transfer, affirmed by the NLRC, was a fair solution to break the impasse. The Court, however, denied the Solicitor General’s recommendation for separation pay, as Sedaya was not laid off or retrenched; his services were still needed, and his termination resulted from his own refusal to accept a valid reassignment. The petition was dismissed, with a final order for the company to issue another written transfer memorandum, giving Sedaya ten days to comply or face dismissal for cause without severance pay.