Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

PHARMACIA and UPJOHN, INC. (now PFIZER PHILIPPINES, INC.

), ASHLEY MORRIS, ALEDA


CHU, JANE MONTILLA & FELICITO GARCIA, !"#"#on!$%, &%. RICARDO P. AL'AYDA, JR.,
$!%ond!n".
G.R. No. ()*)*+. A,-,%" *., */(/.0
Appeals; The scope of the Supreme Courts review in petitions filed under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law
or jurisdictionthe Court leaves the evaluation of facts to the trial and appellate courts which are better
euipped for this tas!; "#ceptions$As a %eneral rule& this Court does not entertain factual issues$ The
scope of our review in petitions filed under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law or jurisdiction$ This Court
leaves the evaluation of facts to the trial and appellate courts which are better euipped for this tas!$
'owever& there are instances in which factual issues ma( be resolved b( this Court& to wit) *+, the conclusion
is a findin% %rounded entirel( on speculation& surmise and conjecture; *-, the inference made is manifestl(
mista!en; *., there is %rave abuse of discretion; *4, the jud%ment is based on a misapprehension of facts; *5,
the findin%s of fact are conflictin%; */, the CA %oes be(ond the issues of the case& and its findin%s are
contrar( to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; *0, the findin%s of fact of the CA are contrar( to
those of the trial court; *1, said findin%s of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which the( are based; *2, the facts set forth in the petition& as well as in the petitioners main and repl(
briefs& are not disputed b( the respondent; and *+3, the findin%s of fact of the CA are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted b( the evidence on record$
4abor 4aw; 5ana%ement 6rero%atives; Transfers; 7t is a mana%ement prero%ative to transfer or assi%n
emplo(ees from one office or area of operation to another& provided there is no demotion in ran! or
diminution of salar(& benefits& and other privile%es& and the action is not motivated b( discrimination& made
in bad faith& or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause$8urisprudence
reco%ni9es the e#ercise of mana%ement prero%ative to transfer or assi%n emplo(ees from one office or area of
operation to another& provided there is no demotion in ran! or diminution of salar(& benefits& and other
privile%es& and the action is not motivated b( discrimination& made in bad faith& or effected as a form of
punishment or demotion without sufficient cause$ To determine the validit( of the transfer of emplo(ees& the
emplo(er must show that the transfer is not unreasonable& inconvenient& or prejudicial to the emplo(ee; nor
does it involve a demotion in ran! or a diminution of his salaries& privile%es and other benefits$ Should the
emplo(er fail to overcome this burden of proof& the emplo(ees transfer shall be tantamount to constructive
dismissal$
Same; Same; Same; :indin%s of fact of the ;ational 4abor Relations Commission *;4RC,& affirmin% those
of the 4A& are entitled to %reat wei%ht and will not be disturbed if the( are supported b( substantial evidence$
The rule in our jurisdiction is that findin%s of fact of the ;4RC& affirmin% those of the 4A& are entitled to
%reat wei%ht and will not be disturbed if the( are supported b( substantial evidence$ Substantial evidence is
an amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind mi%ht accept as adeuate to justif( a conclusion$
As e#plained in 7%nacio v$ Coca<Cola =ottlers 6hils$& 7nc$& ./5 SCRA 4+1 *-33+,) # # # :actual findin%s of
the ;4RC affirmin% those of the 4abor Arbiter& both bodies bein% deemed to have acuired e#pertise in
matters within their jurisdictions& when sufficientl( supported b( evidence on record& are accorded respect if
not finalit(& and are considered bindin% on this Court$ As lon% as their decisions are devoid of an( unfairness
or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered b( the parties& all that is left is
for the Court to stamp its affirmation and declare its finalit($
Same; Same; Same; 7n the absence of arbitrariness& the Court of Appeals should not loo! into the wisdom of
a mana%ement prero%ative$7n the absence of arbitrariness& the CA should not have loo!ed into the wisdom
of a mana%ement prero%ative$ 7t is the emplo(ers prero%ative& based on its assessment and perception of its
emplo(ees ualifications& aptitudes& and competence& to move them around in the various areas of its
business operations in order to ascertain where the( will function with ma#imum benefit to the compan($ As
a matter of fact& while the CAs observations ma( be acceptable to some uarters& it is nevertheless not
universal so as to foreclose another view on what ma( be a better business decision$ >hile it would be
profitable to !eep respondent in an area where he has established contacts and therefore the probabilit( of
him reachin% and even surpassin% his sales uota is hi%h& on the one hand& one can also ma!e a case that
since respondent is one of petitioners best district mana%ers& he is the ri%ht person to turn around and
improve the sales numbers in Ca%a(an de ?ro Cit(& an area which in the past had been dismall( performin%$
After all& improvin% and developin% a new mar!et ma( even be more profitable than havin% respondent sta(
and serve his old mar!et$ 7n addition& one can even ma!e a case and sa( that the transfer of respondent is
also for his professional %rowth$ Since respondent has been alread( assi%ned in the >estern @isa(as area for
-- (ears& it ma( mean that his mar!et !nowled%e is ver( limited$ 7n another territor(& there will be new and
more challen%es for respondent to face$ 7n addition& one can even ar%ue that for purposes of future
promotions& it would be better to promote a district mana%er who has e#perience in different mar!ets$
Same; Same; Same; The rule is well<settled that labor laws discoura%e interference with an emplo(ers
jud%ment in the conduct of his businesseven as the law is solicitous of the welfare of emplo(ees& it must
also protect the ri%ht of an emplo(er to e#ercise what are clearl( mana%ement prero%atives$The fore%oin%
illustrates wh( it is dan%erous for this Court and even the CA to loo! into the wisdom of a mana%ement
prero%ative$ Certainl(& one can ar%ue for or a%ainst the pros and cons of transferrin% respondent to another
territor($ Absent a definite findin% that such e#ercise of prero%ative was tainted with arbitrariness and
unreasonableness& the CA should have left the same to petitioners better jud%ment$ The rule is well settled
that labor laws discoura%e interference with an emplo(ers jud%ment in the conduct of his business$ "ven as
the law is solicitous of the welfare of emplo(ees& it must also protect the ri%ht of an emplo(er to e#ercise
what are clearl( mana%ement prero%atives$ As lon% as the compan(s e#ercise of the same is in %ood faith to
advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeatin% or circumventin% the ri%hts of emplo(ees under the
laws or valid a%reements& such e#ercise will be upheld$
Same; Same; Same; Salesmen; The ver( nature of a sales man is that it is mobile and ambulant$This Court
cannot a%ree with the findin%s of the CA that the transfer of respondent was unreasonable& considerin% he
had not been remiss in his responsibilities$ >hat the CA failed to reco%ni9e is that the ver( nature of a sales
man is that it is mobile and ambulant$ ?n this point& it bears to stress that respondent si%ned two documents
si%nif(in% his assent to be assi%ned an(where in the 6hilippines$ 7n respondents "mplo(ment Application& he
chec!ed the bo# which as!s& AAre (ou willin% to be relocated an(where in the 6hilippinesBC 7n addition& in
respondents Contract of "mplo(ment& item *1, reads) Dou a%ree& durin% the period of (our emplo(ment& to
be assi%ned to an( wor! or wor!place for such period as ma( be determined b( the compan( and whenever
the operations thereof reuire such assi%nment$
Same; Same; Same; The Court has lon% stated that the objection to the transfer bein% %rounded solel( upon
the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the emplo(ee b( reason of the transfer is not a
valid reason to disobe( an order of transfer$This Court has lon% stated that the objection to the transfer
bein% %rounded solel( upon the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the emplo(ee b(
reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to disobe( an order of transfer$ Such bein% the case& respondent
cannot adamantl( refuse to abide b( the order of transfer without e#posin% himself to the ris! of bein%
dismissed$ 'ence& his dismissal was for just cause in accordance with Article -1-*a, of the 4abor Code$
1 |P h a r ma c i a
Same; Termination of "mplo(ment; Eue 6rocess; "ven if no actual hearin% was conducted before the
emplo(er dismissed the emplo(ee& the same is not fatal as onl( an Aample opportunit( to be heardC is what
is reuired in order to satisf( the reuirements of due processthe reuirement of due process had been met
since the( were accorded a chance to e#plain their side of the controvers($7n termination proceedin%s of
emplo(ees& procedural due process consists of the twin reuirements of notice and hearin%$ The emplo(er
must furnish the emplo(ee with two written notices before the termination of emplo(ment can be effected) *+,
the first apprises the emplo(ee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sou%ht; and *-,
the second informs the emplo(ee of the emplo(ers decision to dismiss him$ The reuirement of a hearin% is
complied with as lon% as there was an opportunit( to be heard& and not necessaril( that an actual hearin%
was conducted$ >hile no actual hearin% was conducted before petitioners dismissed respondent& the same is
not fatal as onl( an Aample opportunit( to be heardC is what is reuired in order to satisf( the reuirements
of due process$ Accordin%l(& this Court is %uided b( Solid Eevelopment Corporation >or!ers Association v$
Solid Eevelopment Corporation& 5.3 SCRA +.- *-330,& *Solid,& where the validit( of the dismissal of two
emplo(ees was upheld notwithstandin% that no hearin% was conducted& to wit) F>Gell<settled is the dictum
that the twin reuirements of notice and hearin% constitute the essential elements of due process in the
dismissal of emplo(ees$ 7t is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the emplo(er must furnish the emplo(ee
with two written notices before the termination of emplo(ment can be effected) *+, the first apprises the
emplo(ee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sou%ht; and *-, the second informs
the emplo(ee of the emplo(ers decision to dismiss him$ The reuirement of a hearin%& on the other hand& is
complied with as lon% as there was an opportunit( to be heard& and not necessaril( that an actual hearin%
was conducted$
Same; Same; "uit(; >ords and 6hrases; >hile an emplo(ee dismissed for cause is %enerall( not entitled to
an( financial assistance& euit( considerations& however& provide an e#ception; "uit( has been defined as
justice outside law& bein% ethical rather than jural and belon%in% to the sphere of morals than of law$This
Court& however& is not unmindful of previous rulin%s& wherein separation pa( has been %ranted to a validl(
dismissed emplo(ee after %ivin% considerable wei%ht to lon% (ears of emplo(ment$ An emplo(ee who is
dismissed for cause is %enerall( not entitled to an( financial assistance$ "uit( considerations& however&
provide an e#ception$ "uit( has been defined as justice outside law& bein% ethical rather than jural and
belon%in% to the sphere of morals than of law$ 7t is %rounded on the precepts of conscience and not on an(
sanction of positive law& for euit( finds no room for application where there is law$
Same; Same; Same; Corporate 5er%ers; "ven as the emplo(ee has onl( been in service for four (ears at the
time of separation since the mer%er of 6harmacia and Hpjohn too! place in +22/& euit( considerations
dictate that such emplo(ees tenure be computed from +201& the (ear when he started wor!in% for Hpjohn$
7n the instant case& this Court rules that an award to respondent of separation pa( b( wa( of financial
assistance& euivalent to one<half *+I-, months pa( for ever( (ear of service& is euitable$ Althou%h
respondents actions constituted a valid %round to terminate his services& the same is to this Courts mind not
so reprehensible as to warrant complete disre%ard of his lon% (ears of service$ 7t also appears that the same
is respondents first offense$ >hile it ma( be e#pected that petitioners will ar%ue that respondent has onl(
been in their service for four (ears since the mer%er of 6harmacia and Hpjohn too! place in +22/& euit(
considerations dictate that respondents tenure be computed from +201& the (ear when respondent started
wor!in% for Hpjohn$
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Romulo, Maanta, !uenaventura, "a#oc $ %elos An&eles for petitioners.
'alencia, Ciocon, %aao, 'alencia, %ela Pa(, %ionela, Ravina and Pandan )aw Offices for
respondent.
PERA)TA, *.+
!efore this Court is a petition for review on certiorari,, under Rule -. of the Rules of Court, see/in&
to set aside the Novemer 01, 211. %ecision2 and Ma# ., 2113 Resolution0 of the Court of
Appeals 4CA5, in CA67.R. "P No. 11083.
The facts of the case are as follows+
Respondent Ricardo P. Ala#da, *r. 4respondent5 was an emplo#ee of 9p:ohn, Inc. 49p:ohn5 in
,;<8 and continued wor/in& there until ,;;3 when a mer&er etween Pharmacia and 9p:ohn was
created. After the mer&er, respondent was desi&nated # petitioner Pharmacia and 9p:ohn
4Pharmacia5 as %istrict "ales Mana&er assi&ned to %istrict =I in the >estern 'isa#as area. %urin&
the period of his assi&nment, respondent settled in !acolod Cit#.
"ometime on Au&ust ;, ,;;;, a district meetin& was held in Ma/ati Cit# wherein one of the topics
discussed was the district territorial confi&uration for the new mar/etin& and sales direction for the
#ear 2111.
In %ecemer ,;;;, respondent received a Memorandum- announcin& the sales force structure for
the #ear 2111. In the said memorandum, respondent was reassi&ned as %istrict "ales Mana&er to
%istrict =II in the Northern Mindanao area. One of the /e# areas covered in %istrict =II is Ca&a#an
de Oro Cit#.
In response to the memorandum, respondent wrote a letter. dated %ecemer 2<, ,;;; to ?elicito
M. 7arcia 47arcia5, Pharmacia@s 'ice6President for "ales and Mar/etin&, Auestionin& his transfer
from %istrict =I to %istrict =II. Respondent said that he has alwa#s een assi&ned to the >estern
'isa#as area and that he felt that he could not improve the sales of products if he was assi&ned to
an unfamiliar territor#. Respondent concluded that his transfer mi&ht e a wa# for his mana&ers to
dismiss him from emplo#ment. Respondent added that he could not possil# accept his new
assi&nment in Ca&a#an de Oro Cit# ecause he will e dislocated from his famil#B his wife runs an
estalished usiness in !acolod Cit#B his eleven6 #ear6old dau&hter is stud#in& in !acolod Cit#B
and his two6#ear6old son is under his and his wife@s direct care.
On *anuar# ,1, 2111, 7arcia wrote a letter3 to respondent den#in& his reAuest to e reassi&ned to
the >estern 'isa#as area. 7arcia eCplained that the factors used in determinin& assi&nments of
mana&ers are to maCimi(e usiness opportunities and &rowth and development of personnel.
7arcia stressed that other peopleDoth reprensentatives and district sales mana&ersDhave een
re6located in the past and in the #ear 2111 re6ali&nment.
On ?eruar# ,3, 2111, respondent wrote a letter< to Aleda Chu 4Chu5, Pharmacia@s National "ales
and ECternal !usiness Mana&er, reiteratin& his reAuest to e reassi&ned to the >estern 'isa#as
area. Respondent alle&ed that durin& one conversation, Chu assured him that as lon& as he hits
his sales tar&et # ,11E, he would not e transferred. Respondent a&ain speculated that the real
reason ehind his transfer was that it was petitioners@ wa# of terminatin& his emplo#ment.
2 |P h a r ma c i a
Respondent harped that his transfer would compel him to lose his free housin& and his wife@s
compensation of P.1,111.11 from her usiness in !acolod Cit#.
In a letter8 dated March 0, 2111, Chu said that she did not &ive an# assurance or commitment to
respondent that he would not e transferred as lon& as he achieved his ,11E tar&et for ,;;;. Chu
eCplained to respondent that the# are movin& him to Ca&a#an de Oro Cit#, ecause of their need of
respondent@s eCpertise to uild the usiness there. Chu added that the district performed dismall#
in ,;;; and, therefore, the# were confident that under respondent@s leadership, he can implement
new wa#s and develop the sales force to ecome etter and more productive. Moreover, since
respondent has een alread# in !acolod and Iloilo for 22 #ears, Chu said that eCposure to a
different mar/et environment and new challen&es will contriute to respondent@s development as a
mana&er. ?inall#, Chu stressed that the decision to transfer respondent was purel# a usiness
decision.
Respondent replied throu&h a letter; dated March ,3, 2111. Respondent li/ened his transfer to
Mindanao as a form of punishment as he alle&ed that even Police Chief 7eneral Panfilo )acson
transferred errin& and non6performin& police officers to Mindanao. Respondent ar&ued that Chu
failed to face and address the issues he raised re&ardin& the loss of his famil# income, the
additional cost of housin& and other additional eCpenses he will incur in Mindanao.
In a memorandum,1 dated Ma# ,,, 2111, *ane !. Montilla 4Montilla5, Pharmacia@s Fuman
Resource Mana&er, notified respondent that since he has een on sic/ leave since *anuar# .,
2111 up to the present, he had alread# consumed all his sic/ leave credits for the #ear 2111.
Montilla stated that per compan# polic#, respondent would then e considered on indefinite sic/
leave without pa#. In another memorandum,, dated Ma# ,., 2111, Montilla informed respondent
of the clinic schedule of the compan# appointed doctor.
In a letter,2 dated Ma# ,<, 2111, respondent ac/nowled&ed his receipt of the letters from Montilla.
Respondent informed Montilla that his doctors had alread# declared him fit for wor/ as of Ma# ,3,
2111. Respondent stated that he was alread# read# to ta/e on his re&ular assi&nment as %istrict
"ales Mana&er in Ne&ros Occidental or in an# district in the >estern 'isa#as area.
In a letter,0 dated Ma# ,<, 2111, Chu eCpressed her disappointment on the wa# respondent
viewed their reason for movin& his place of assi&nment. Chu was li/ewise disappointed with
respondent@s opinion that with the movement, he e &iven additional remuneration, when in fact,
such was never done in the past and never the practice in the industr# and in the Philippines. Chu
concluded that it appeared to her that respondent would not accept an# reason for the movement
and that nothin& is acceptale to him eCcept a >estern 'isa#as assi&nment. ConseAuentl#, Chu
referred the case to the Fuman Resource %epartment for appropriate action.
Montilla met with respondent to discuss his situation. After the meetin&, Montilla sent respondent a
memorandum,- wherein his reAuest to continue his wor/ responsiilities in Ne&ros Occidental or
in an# district in the >estern 'isa#as area was denied as there was no vacant position in those
areas. Montilla stressed that the compan# needed respondent in Ca&a#an de Oro Cit#, ecause of
his wealth of eCperience, talent and s/ills. Respondent, however, was also &iven an option to e
assi&ned in Metro Manila as a position in the said territor# had recentl# opened when *oven
Rodri&ue( was transferred as 7overnment Accounts and "pecial Pro:ects Mana&er. Montilla &ave
respondent until *une 2, 2111 to tal/ to his famil# and wei&h the pros and cons of his decision on
whether to accept a post in Ca&a#an de Oro Cit# or in Manila.
In a letter,. dated Ma# 0,, 2111, respondent reiterated the concerns he raised in his previous
letters. Montilla sent respondent another memorandum,3 dated *une 3, 2111, statin& that it is in
the est interest of the compan# for respondent to report to the Ma/ati office to assume his new
area of assi&nment.
In a letter,< dated *une 8, 2111, respondent told Montilla that he will e airin& his &rievance efore
the National )aor Relations Commission 4N)RC5.
In a memorandum,8 dated *une ,., 2111, Montilla stated that contrar# to the opinion of
respondent, respondent is entitled to Relocation !enefits and Allowance pursuant to the compan#@s
!enefits Manual. Montilla directed respondent to report for wor/ in Manila within . wor/in& da#s
from receipt of the memorandum. In another memorandum,; dated *une 23, 2111, Montilla stated
that she had not heard from respondent since his *une 8, 2111 letter and that he has not replied to
their last memorandum dated *une ,., 2111. Respondent was warned that the same would e a
final notice for him to report for wor/ in Manila within . wor/in& da#s from receipt of the memoB
otherwise, his services will e terminated on the asis of ein& asent without official leave
4A>O)5.
On *ul# ,0, 2111, Montilla sent respondent a memorandum21 notif#in& him of their decision to
terminate his services after he repeatedl# refused to report for wor/ despite due notice, the
pertinent portions of which read+
GAs I mentioned man# times in our tal/s, #ou are in a "ales position for which #ou had si&ned up.
Hour emplo#ment contract actuall# states that #ou are willin& to e assi&ned an#where else in the
Philippines, wherever the compan# needs #ou sees #ou fit.
Metro Manila is the i&&est and most advanced mar/et we have in the Philippines. It is where the
success or failure of our usiness lies. It is, therefore, the most competitive and si&nificant area for
sales. It is the most challen&in& and most rewardin& of all areas. Onl# the est field mana&ers are
&iven the opportunit# to mana&e a territor# in Metro Manila. This is wh# I chose Manila over
Ca&a#an de Oro for #ou in m# letter dated *une 3, 2111. And ecause #ou had assured us that #ou
were fit to wor/, after ein& on sic/ leave for aout five and a half months, I as/ed #ou to assume
#our new assi&nment in Metro Manila efore *une ,3, 2111.
!efore *une ,3, 2111, #ou wrote us a letter advisin& us that #ou can not accept the new
assi&nment in Manila. In response, we advised #ou that the assi&nment in Manila is a usiness
need and for said reason #ou were reAuested to report for wor/ within five wor/in& da#s from
receipt of notice. Fowever, #ou failed to compl#. "o we issued another memo dated *une 23, 2111,
instructin& #ou to report for wor/ and advisin& #ou that should #ou continue to fail to report for
wor/, the compan# shall e constrained to terminate #our emplo#ment.
In view of the fore&oin&, we have no alternative ut to terminate #our services on the asis of
asence without official leave 4A>O)5 and insuordination pursuant to Article 282 of the )aor
Code of the Philippines, which shall e effective on *ul# ,;, 2111.I2,
On Au&ust ,-, 2111, respondent filed a Complaint22 with the N)RC, Re&ional Aritration !ranch
No. 'I, !acolod Cit# a&ainst Pharmacia, Chu, Montilla and 7arcia for constructive dismissal. Also
included in the complaint was Ashle# Morris, Pharmacia@s President. "ince mandator# conciliation
failed etween the parties, oth sides were directed to sumit their position papers. On *ul# ,2,
3 |P h a r ma c i a
2112, the )aor Ariter 4)A5 rendered a %ecision20 dismissin& the case, the dispositive portion of
which reads+
G>FERE?ORE, premises considered, the complaint a&ainst respondents in the aove6entitled
case is %I"MI""E% for lac/ of merit.
"O OR%ERE%.I2-
Respondent appealed to the N)RC. In a %ecision2. dated *ul# 23, 211-, the N)RC dismissed the
appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads+
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration,2< which was denied # the N)RC in a
Resolution28 dated Novemer ,1, 211-.
A&&rieved, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari2; efore the CA.
On Novemer 01, 211., the CA rendered a %ecision rulin& in favor of respondent, the dispositive
portion of which reads+
G>FERE?ORE, premises considered, this petition is here# &iven due course and the Resolution
dated Novemer ,1, 211- and the %ecision dated *ul# 23, 211- of the N)RC ?ourth %ivision in
N)RC Case No. '6111.2,62111 4RA! Case No. 136186,13.1621115, are here# RE'ER"E% and
"ET A"I%E. Accordin&l#, the case is REMAN%E% to the National )aor Relations Commission,
Re&ional Aritration !ranch No. 'I, !acolod Cit#, for the proper determination of the petitioner@s
claims.
"O OR%ERE%.I01
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied # the CA in a
Resolution dated Ma# ., 2113.
Fence, herein petition, with petitioner raisin& a lone assi&nment of error to wit+
G>FETFER OR NOT TFE CO9RT O? APPEA)" 4CE!9 CITH5 CAN RE'ER"E OR "ET A"I%E
TFE ?ACT9A) AN% )E7A) ?IN%IN7" O? TFE N)RC >FICF >A" !A"E% ON "9!"TANTIA)
E'I%ENCE >FEN TFERE I" NO "FO>IN7 O? PA)PA!)E ERROR OR TFAT TFE ?IN%IN7"
O? ?ACT" O? TFE )A!OR AR!ITER I" CONTRARH TO TFAT O? TFE N)RC.I0,
The petition is meritorious.
As a &eneral rule, this Court does not entertain factual issues. The scope of our review in petitions
filed under Rule -. is limited to errors of law or :urisdiction.02 This Court leaves the evaluation of
facts to the trial and appellate courts which are etter eAuipped for this tas/.
Fowever, there are instances in which factual issues ma# e resolved # this Court, to wit+ 4,5 the
conclusion is a findin& &rounded entirel# on speculation, surmise and con:ectureB 425 the inference
made is manifestl# mista/enB 405 there is &rave ause of discretionB 4-5 the :ud&ment is ased on a
misapprehension of factsB 4.5 the findin&s of fact are conflictin&B 435 the CA &oes e#ond the issues
of the case, and its findin&s are contrar# to the admissions of oth appellant and appelleesB 4<5 the
findin&s of fact of the CA are contrar# to those of the trial courtB 485 said findin&s of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which the# are asedB 4;5 the facts set forth in
the petition, as well as in the petitioner@s main and repl# riefs, are not disputed # the respondentB
and 4,15 the findin&s of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed asence of evidence and
contradicted # the evidence on record.00
In the present case, this Court is prompted to evaluate the findin&s of the )A, the N)RC, and the
CA which are diametricall# opposed.
Petitioners ar&ue that the CA erred when it reversed the factual and le&al findin&s of the N)RC
which affirmed the decision of the )A. Petitioners contend that it is well estalished that factual
findin&s of administrative a&encies and Auasi6:udicial odies are accorded &reat respect and finalit#
and are not to e distured on appeal unless patentl# erroneous.
After a :udicious eCamination of the records herein, this Court sustains the findin&s of the )A and
the N)RC which are more in accord with the facts and law of the case.
On petitioners@ eCercise of mana&ement prero&ative
*urisprudence reco&ni(es the eCercise of mana&ement prero&ative to transfer or assi&n emplo#ees
from one office or area of operation to another, provided there is no demotion in ran/ or diminution
of salar#, enefits, and other privile&es, and the action is not motivated # discrimination, made in
ad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.0-
To determine the validit# of the transfer of emplo#ees, the emplo#er must show that the transfer is
not unreasonale, inconvenient, or pre:udicial to the emplo#eeB nor does it involve a demotion in
ran/ or a diminution of his salaries, privile&es and other enefits. "hould the emplo#er fail to
overcome this urden of proof, the emplo#ee@s transfer shall e tantamount to constructive
dismissal.0.
!oth the )A and the N)RC ruled that the reassi&nment of respondent was a valid eCercise of
petitioners@ mana&ement prero&ative.
The )A shared petitioners@ posture that the transfer of respondent was a valid eCercise of a
le&itimate mana&ement prero&ative to maCimi(e usiness opportunities, &rowth and development
of personnel and that the eCpertise of respondent was needed to uild the compan#@s usiness in
Ca&a#an de Oro Cit# which dismall# performed in ,;;;.03
In addition, the )A eCplained that the reassi&nment of respondent was not a demotion as he will
also e assi&ned as a %istrict "ales Mana&er in Mindanao or in Metro Manila and that the notice of
his transfer did not indicate that his emoluments will e reduced. Moreover, the )A mentioned that
respondent was entitled to Relocation !enefits and Allowance in accordance with petitioners@
!enefits Manual.
On respondent@s alle&ation that his famil# stands to lose income from his wife@s usiness, the )A
ruled+
GThe alle&ation of complainant that his income will e affected ecause his wife who is doin&
usiness in !acolod Cit# and earns P.1,111.11, if true, should not e ta/en in consideration of his
4 |P h a r ma c i a
transfer. >hat is contemplated here is the diminution of the salar# of the complainant ut not his
wife. !esides, even if complainant ma# accept his new assi&nment in Ca&a#an de Oro or in Metro
Manila, his wife ma# still continue to do her usiness in !acolod Cit#. An#wa#, !acolod Cit# and
Manila is :ust one 4,5 hour travel # plane.I0<
)astl#, the )A pointed out that in respondent@s contract of emplo#ment, he a&reed to e assi&ned to
an# wor/ or wor/place as ma# e determined # the compan# whenever the operations reAuire
such assi&nment.
The N)RC affirmed in toto the findin&s of the )A. The N)RC ruled that petitioners@ restructurin&
move was a valid eCercise of its mana&ement prero&ative and authori(ed under the emplo#ment
contract of respondent, to wit+
G>e do not see in the records an# evidence to prove that the restructurin& move of respondent
compan# was done with ill motives or with malice and ad faith purposel# to constructivel#
terminate complainant@s emplo#ment. "uch misinterpretation or mis&uided supposition #
complainant is elied # the fact that respondent@s officers had in several communications officiall#
sent to complainant, eCpressl# reco&ni(ed complainant@s eCpertise and capailities as a top sales
man and mana&er for which reason the respondent compan# needs his services and s/ills to
ener&i(e the low6performin& areas in order to maCimi(e usiness opportunities and to afford
complainant an opportunit# for further &rowth and development. Complainant persistentl# refused
instead of ta/in& this opportunit# as a challen&e after all, the nature of emplo#ment of a sales man
or sales mana&er is that it is moile or amulant ein& alwa#s see/in& for possile areas to mar/et
&oods and services. Fe totall# for&ot the terms and conditions in his emplo#ment contract, stated in
part, thus+
C C C C
Hou a&ree, durin& the period of emplo#ment, to e assi&ned to an# wor/ or wor/place for such
period as ma# e determined # the compan# and whenever the operations thereof reAuire such
assi&nment.I08
The rule in our :urisdiction is that findin&s of fact of the N)RC, affirmin& those of the )A, are entitled
to &reat wei&ht and will not e distured if the# are supported # sustantial evidence.0;
"ustantial evidence is an amount of relevant evidence which a reasonale mind mi&ht accept as
adeAuate to :ustif# a conclusion.-1 As eCplained in I&nacio v. Coca6Cola !ottlers Phils., Inc+-,
GC C C ?actual findin&s of the N)RC affirmin& those of the )aor Ariter, oth odies ein& deemed
to have acAuired eCpertise in matters within their :urisdictions, when sufficientl# supported #
evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finalit#, and are considered indin& on this Court.
As lon& as their decisions are devoid of an# unfairness or aritrariness in the process of their
deduction from the evidence proffered # the parties, all that is left is for the Court to stamp its
affirmation and declare its finalit#.I-2
!ased on the fore&oin&, this Court rules that the CA had overstepped its le&al mandate #
reversin& the findin&s of fact of the )A and the N)RC as it appears that oth decisions were ased
on sustantial evidence. There is no proof of aritrariness or ause of discretion in the process #
which each od# arrived at its own conclusions. Thus, the CA should have deferred to such
speciali(ed a&encies which are considered eCperts in matters within their :urisdictions.
Moreover, what is o:ectionale with the CA decision is that in findin& that the reassi&nment of
respondent was aritrar# and unreasonale it had, in effect, imposed on petitioners its own opinion
or :ud&ment on what should have een a purel# usiness decision, to wit+
G%iscussin& the issues :ointl#, a perusal of the records shows that there was no overwhelmin&
evidence to prove that petitioner was terminated for a :ust and valid cause. Pulic respondent had
overloo/ed the fact that the reassi&nment of petitioner was aritrar# and unreasonale as the same
was in contrast to the purposes espoused # private respondents. 9ndoutedl#, petitioner is a
complete alien to the territor# and as no estalished contacts therein, thus, he cannot e effective
nor can he maCimi(e profits. It cannot also contriute to his professional &rowth and development
considerin& that he had alread# made a mar/ on his territor# # virtue of his twent#6two 4225 lon&
#ears of valuale service. Considerin& the Aualit# of his performance in his territor#, the private
respondents cannot therefore reason out that the# are merel# eCercisin& their mana&ement
prero&ative for it would e unreasonale since petitioner has not een amiss in his responsiilities.
?urthermore, it would undenial# cause undue inconvenience to herein petitioner who would have
to relocate, disruptin& his famil#@s peaceful livin&, and with no additional monthl# remuneration.I-0
In the asence of aritrariness, the CA should not have loo/ed into the wisdom of a mana&ement
prero&ative. It is the emplo#er@s prero&ative, ased on its assessment and perception of its
emplo#ee@s Aualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the various areas of
its usiness operations in order to ascertain where the# will function with maCimum enefit to the
compan#.--
As a matter of fact, while the CA@s oservations ma# e acceptale to some Auarters, it is
nevertheless not universal so as to foreclose another view on what ma# e a etter usiness
decision. >hile it would e profitale to /eep respondent in an area where he has estalished
contacts and therefore the proailit# of him reachin& and even surpassin& his sales Auota is hi&h,
on the one hand, one can also ma/e a case that since respondent is one of petitioners@ est district
mana&ers, he is the ri&ht person to turn around and improve the sales numers in Ca&a#an de Oro
Cit#, an area which in the past had een dismall# performin&. After all, improvin& and developin& a
new mar/et ma# even e more profitale than havin& respondent sta# and serve his old mar/et. In
addition, one can even ma/e a case and sa# that the transfer of respondent is also for his
professional &rowth. "ince respondent has een alread# assi&ned in the >estern 'isa#as area for
22 #ears, it ma# mean that his mar/et /nowled&e is ver# limited. In another territor#, there will e
new and more challen&es for respondent to face. In addition, one can even ar&ue that for purposes
of future promotions, it would e etter to promote a district mana&er who has eCperience in
different mar/ets.
The fore&oin& illustrates wh# it is dan&erous for this Court and even the CA to loo/ into the wisdom
of a mana&ement prero&ative. Certainl#, one can ar&ue for or a&ainst the pros and cons of
transferrin& respondent to another territor#. Asent a definite findin& that such eCercise of
prero&ative was tainted with aritrariness and unreasonaleness, the CA should have left the same
to petitioners@ etter :ud&ment. The rule is well settled that laor laws discoura&e interference with
an emplo#er@s :ud&ment in the conduct of his usiness. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare
of emplo#ees, it must also protect the ri&ht of an emplo#er to eCercise what are clearl#
mana&ement prero&atives. As lon& as the compan#@s eCercise of the same is in &ood faith to
advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeatin& or circumventin& the ri&hts of emplo#ees
under the laws or valid a&reements, such eCercise will e upheld.-.
5 |P h a r ma c i a
In addition, this Court cannot a&ree with the findin&s of the CA that the transfer of respondent was
unreasonale, considerin& he had not een remiss in his responsiilities. >hat the CA failed to
reco&ni(e is that the ver# nature of a sales man is that it is moile and amulant. On this point, it
ears to stress that respondent si&ned two documents si&nif#in& his assent to e assi&ned
an#where in the Philippines. In respondent@s Emplo#ment Application,-3 he chec/ed the oC which
as/s, GAre #ou willin& to e relocated an#where in the PhilippinesJI-< In addition, in respondent@s
Contract of Emplo#ment,-8 item 485 reads+
GHou a&ree, durin& the period of #our emplo#ment, to e assi&ned to an# wor/ or wor/place for
such period as ma# e determined # the compan# and whenever the operations thereof reAuire
such assi&nment.I-;
Even if respondent has een performin& his duties well it does not mean that petitioners@ hands are
tied up that the# can no lon&er reassi&n respondent to another territor#. And it is precisel# ecause
of respondent@s &ood performance that petitioners want him to e reassi&ned to Ca&a#an de Oro
Cit# so that he could improve their usiness there.
In Aott )aoratories 4Phils.5, Inc. v. National )aor Relations Commission,.1 which involved a
complaint filed # a medical representative a&ainst his emplo#er dru& compan# for ille&al dismissal
for alle&edl# terminatin& his emplo#ment when he refused to accept his reassi&nment to a new
area, the Court upheld the ri&ht of the dru& compan# to transfer or reassi&n its emplo#ee in
accordance with its operational demands and reAuirements. The rulin& of the Court therein, Auoted
hereunder, also finds application in the instant case+
GTherefore, !oadilla had no valid reason to disoe# the order of transfer. Fe had tacitl# &iven his
consent thereto when he acceded to the petitioners@ polic# of hirin& sales staff who are willin& to e
assi&ned an#where in the Philippines which is demanded # petitioners@ usiness.
!# the ver# nature of his emplo#ment, a dru& salesman or medical representative is eCpected to
travel. Fe should anticipate reassi&nment accordin& to the demands of their usiness. It would e
a poor dru& corporation which cannot even assi&n its representatives or detail men to new mar/ets
callin& for openin& or eCpansion or to areas where the need for pushin& its products is &reat. More
so if such reassi&nments are part of the emplo#ment contract.I.,
On the eCistence of &rounds to dismiss respondent from the service
!ecause of respondent@s adamant refusal to e reassi&ned, the )A ruled that petitioners had valid
&rounds to terminate his emplo#ment, to wit+
GAs earl# as in %ecemer 2<, ,;;;, complainant alread# si&nified his refusal to accept his new
assi&nment in Ca&a#an de Oro. Complainant was on sic/ leave since *anuar# ., 2111 up to Ma#
,,, 2111, for aout four 4-5 months and he alread# consumed his leave credits up to March 2111.
Fence, startin& April 2111 he was alread# on indefinite leave without pa#.
C C C C
In his letter dated Ma# ,<, 2111, addressed to respondent *ane !. Montilla, complainant informed
her that his doctors have alread# declared him fit for wor/ as of Ma# ,3, 2111, and he was read# to
assume to his re&ular assi&nment as %istrict "ales Mana&er of Ne&ros Occidental. This is a stron&
indication that complainant reall# does not want to accept his new assi&nment either in Ca&a#an
de Oro or in Metro Manila, which is clearl# a defiance of the lawful order of his emplo#er, and a
&round to terminate his services pursuant to Article 282 of the )aor Code.
Notwithstandin& his adamant refusal to resume wor/in& to his new assi&nment in Metro Manila,
complainant was still &iven # respondent Montilla another chance to thin/ it over up to *une 2,
2111. !# wa# of repl#, complainant, in his letter dated Ma# 0,, 2111 to Ms. Montilla, he clearl#
eCpressed his disa&reement to his transfer and would rather see/ :ustice elsewhere in another
forum.
!ut still the respondent compan#, notwithstandin& the position ta/en # complainant in his letter
dated Ma# 0,, 2111 that he is refusin& his transfer &ave complainant until *une ,3, 2111 to
reconsider his position. In a letter dated *une ., 2111, respondent Montilla &ave complainant a
period of five 4.5 da#s from receipt thereof to report to Manila, ut still complainant did not compl#.
Ms. Montilla sent complainant a final notice dated *une 23, 2111 for him to report to Manila within
five 4.5 wor/in& da#s from receipt of the same, with a warnin& that his failure to do so, the compan#
would e constraint to terminate his services for ein& asent without official leave.
?inall#, is was onl# on *ul# ,;, 2111, when the services of complainant was terminated #
respondent compan# throu&h its Fuman Resource Mana&er on the &round of asence without
leave and insuordination pursuant to Article 282 of the )aor Code.
Clearl#, the complainant had aandoned his wor/ # reason of his ein& on A>O) as a
conseAuence of vi&orous o:ection to his transfer to either Ca&a#an de Oro or Metro Manila. The
lon& period of asence of complainant without official leave from April to *ul# ,;, 2111 is more than
sufficient &round to dismiss him. The refusal of complainant to accept his transfer of assi&nment is
a clear willful disoedience of the lawful order of his emplo#er and a &round to terminate his
services under Article 282, par. 4a5 of the )aor Code, as amended. The series of chances &iven
complainant to report for wor/, coupled # his adamant refusal to report to his new assi&nment, is
a conclusive indication of willful disoedience of the lawful orders of his emplo#er.I.2
In addition, the N)RC also ruled that respondent was &uilt# of insuordination, thus+
GApparentl#, complainant, # his un:ustified acts of refusin& to e transferred either to Mindanao or
Manila for personal reasons, asent an# ad faith or malice on the part of respondents, has
delieratel# i&nored and defied lawful orders of his emplo#er. An emplo#ee who refuses to e
transferred, when such transfer is valid, is &uilt# of insuordination. C C CI.0
!ased on the fore&oin&, this Court rules that the findin&s of the )A and the N)RC are supported #
sustantial evidence. The )A clearl# outlined the steps ta/en # petitioners and the manner #
which respondent was eventuall# dismissed. The N)RC, for its part, eCplained wh# respondent
was &uilt# of insuordination. No ause of discretion can, therefore, e attriuted to oth a&encies,
and the CA was certainl# outside its mandate in reversin& such findin&s.
This Court has lon& stated that the o:ection to the transfer ein& &rounded solel# upon the
personal inconvenience or hardship that will e caused to the emplo#ee # reason of the transfer is
not a valid reason to disoe# an order of transfer..- "uch ein& the case, respondent cannot
adamantl# refuse to aide # the order of transfer without eCposin& himself to the ris/ of ein&
6 |P h a r ma c i a
dismissed. Fence, his dismissal was for :ust cause in accordance with Article 2824a5.. of the )aor
Code.
The CA, however, ruled that respondent was not &uilt# of insuordination, to wit+
GAs to the findin&s of insuordination, the records show that petitioner was not &uilt# of such
offense. ?or insuordination to eCist, the order must e reasonale and lawful, sufficientl# /nown to
the emplo#ee and in connection to his duties. >here an order or rule is not reasonale, in view of
the terms of the contract of emplo#ment and the &eneral ri&ht of the parties, a refusal to oe# does
not constitute a :ust cause for the emplo#ee@s dischar&e. It is undeniale that the order &iven # the
compan# to petitioner to transfer to a place where he has no connections, leavin& his famil#
ehind, and with no clear additional remuneration, can e considered unreasonale and
petitioner@s actuation cannot e considered insuordination.I.3
This Court cannot a&ree with the findin&s of the CA, in view of the fact that it was an error for it to
sustitute its own :ud&ment and interfere with mana&ement prero&atives. No iota of evidence was
presented that the reassi&nment of respondent was a demotion as he would still e a %istrict "ales
Mana&er in Ca&a#an de Oro Cit# or in Metro Manila. ?urthermore, he would e &iven relocation
enefits in accordance with the !enefits Manual. If respondent feels that what he was &iven is less
than what is &iven to all other district mana&ers who were li/ewise reassi&ned, the onus is on him
to prove such fact. ?urthermore, records reveal that respondent has een harpin& on the fact that
no additional remuneration would e &iven to him with the transfer. Fowever, a&ain, respondent did
not present an# evidence that additional remuneration were ein& &iven to other district mana&ers
who were reassi&ned to different locations, or that such was the practice in the compan#. This
Court, therefore, is inclined to elieve the statement of Chu in her Ma# ,<, 2111 letter to
respondent that additional remuneration is never &iven to people who are reassi&ned, to wit+
GC C C )i/ewise, I am disappointed that with the movement, #ou eCpect to e paid additional
remuneration when in fact, this has never een done in the past and never a practice within the
industr# and the Philippines.I.<
)astl#, while it is understandale that respondent does not want to relocate his famil#, this Court
a&rees with the N)RC when it oserved that such inconvenience is considered an Gemplo#mentI or
GprofessionalI ha(ard which forms part of the concessions an emplo#ee is deemed to have offered
or sacrificed in the view of his acceptance of a position in sales.
On the oservance of due process, the CA ruled that respondent was denied due process in the
manner he was dismissed # petitioners, to wit+
G?urthermore, the findin& that petitioner was afforded due process is ereft of an# le&al asis. An
emplo#ee must e &iven notice and an ample opportunit#, prior to dismissal to adeAuatel# prepare
for his defense. This is an elementar# rule in laor law that due process in dismissal cases
contemplates the twin reAuisites of notice and hearin&. These procedural reAuirements have een
mandatoril# imposed to the emplo#er to accord its emplo#ees the ri&ht to e heard. ?ailure of the
emplo#er to compl# with such reAuirements renders its :ud&ment of dismissal void and ineCistent. A
written notice from the emplo#er containin& the causes for the dismissal must e &iven. The
emplo#ee is then &iven ample opportunit# to e heard and to defend himself, appraisin& him of his
ri&ht to counsel if he desires. )astl#, a written notice informin& the emplo#ee of the decision of the
emplo#er, citin& there reasons therefore, is &iven. The aove procedure was not followed in the
instant case and the series of communications and meetin&s cannot ta/e the place and is therefore
not sufficient to ta/e the place of notice and hearin&.I.8
In termination proceedin&s of emplo#ees, procedural due process consists of the twin reAuirements
of notice and hearin&. The emplo#er must furnish the emplo#ee with two written notices efore the
termination of emplo#ment can e effected+ 4,5 the first apprises the emplo#ee of the particular acts
or omissions for which his dismissal is sou&htB and 425 the second informs the emplo#ee of the
emplo#er@s decision to dismiss him. The reAuirement of a hearin& is complied with as lon& as there
was an opportunit# to e heard, and not necessaril# that an actual hearin& was conducted..;
>hile no actual hearin& was conducted efore petitioners dismissed respondent, the same is not
fatal as onl# an Gample opportunit# to e heardI is what is reAuired in order to satisf# the
reAuirements of due process.31 Accordin&l#, this Court is &uided # "olid %evelopment
Corporation >or/ers Association v. "olid %evelopment Corporation3, 4"olid5, where the validit# of
the dismissal of two emplo#ees was upheld notwithstandin& that no hearin& was conducted, to wit+
GK>Lell6settled is the dictum that the twin reAuirements of notice and hearin& constitute the essential
elements of due process in the dismissal of emplo#ees. It is a cardinal rule in our :urisdiction that
the emplo#er must furnish the emplo#ee with two written notices efore the termination of
emplo#ment can e effected+ 4,5 the first apprises the emplo#ee of the particular acts or omissions
for which his dismissal is sou&htB and 425 the second informs the emplo#ee of the emplo#er@s
decision to dismiss him. The reAuirement of a hearin&, on the other hand, is complied with as lon&
as there was an opportunit# to e heard, and not necessaril# that an actual hearin& was
conducted.
In separate infraction reports, petitioners were oth apprised of the particular acts or omissions
constitutin& the char&es a&ainst them. The# were also reAuired to sumit their written eCplanation
within ,2 hours from receipt of the reports. Het, neither of them complied. Fad the# found the ,26
hour period too short, the# should have reAuested for an eCtension of time. ?urther, notices of
termination were also sent to them informin& them of the asis of their dismissal. In fine, petitioners
were &iven due process efore the# were dismissed. Even if no hearin& was conducted, the
reAuirement of due process had een met since the# were accorded a chance to eCplain their side
of the controvers#.I32
In the case at ar, this Court finds that petitioners had complied with the reAuirements of law in
effectin& the dismissal of respondent. Petitioners sent respondent a first notice in the form of a
memorandum30 dated *une 23, 2111, warnin& him that the same would serve as a final notice for
him to report to wor/ in Manila within . wor/in& da#s from receipt thereof, otherwise, his services
would e terminated on the asis of A>O). After receivin& the memorandum, respondent could
have reAuested for a conference with the assistance of counsel, if he so desired. )i/e in "olid, had
respondent found the time too short, he should have responded to the memorandum as/in& for
more time. It, however, appears to this Court that respondent made no such reAuests. On *ul# ,0,
2111, petitioners sent another memorandum3- notif#in& respondent that the# are terminatin& his
services effective *ul# ,;, 2111, after he repeatedl# refused to report to wor/ despite due notice.
Even if no actual hearin& was conducted, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners had complied
with the reAuirements of due process as all that the law reAuires is an ample opportunit# to e
heard.
7 |P h a r ma c i a
In conclusion, it ears to stress that the CA should not have distured the factual findin&s of the )A
and the N)RC in the asence of aritrariness or palpale error. The reassi&nment of respondent to
another territor# was a valid eCercise of petitioners@ mana&ement prero&ative and, conseAuentl#,
his dismissal was for cause and in accordance with the due process reAuirement of law.
This Court, however, is not unmindful of previous rulin&s,3. wherein separation pa# has een
&ranted to a validl# dismissed emplo#ee after &ivin& considerale wei&ht to lon& #ears of
emplo#ment.33
An emplo#ee who is dismissed for cause is &enerall# not entitled to an# financial assistance. EAuit#
considerations, however, provide an eCception. EAuit# has een defined as :ustice outside law,
ein& ethical rather than :ural and elon&in& to the sphere of morals than of law. It is &rounded on
the precepts of conscience and not on an# sanction of positive law, for eAuit# finds no room for
application where there is law.3<
In Philippine )on& %istance Telephone Co. v. National )aor Relations Commission,38 the Court
laid down the &uidelines in the &rant of separation pa# to a lawfull# dismissed emplo#ee, thus+
G>e hold that henceforth separation pa# shall e allowed as a measure of social :ustice onl# in
those instances where the emplo#ee is validl# dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct
or those reflectin& on his moral character. >here the reason for the valid dismissal is, for eCample,
haitual intoCication or an offense involvin& moral turpitude, li/e theft or illicit seCual relations with a
fellow wor/er, the emplo#er ma# not e reAuired to &ive the dismissed emplo#ee separation pa#, or
financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the &round of social :ustice.I3;
In the instant case, this Court rules that an award to respondent of separation pa# # wa# of
financial assistance, eAuivalent to one6half 4,M25 month@s pa# for ever# #ear of service, is eAuitale.
Althou&h respondent@s actions constituted a valid &round to terminate his services, the same is to
this Court@s mind not so reprehensile as to warrant complete disre&ard of his lon& #ears of
service. It also appears that the same is respondent@s first offense. >hile it ma# e eCpected that
petitioners will ar&ue that respondent has onl# een in their service for four #ears since the mer&er
of Pharmacia and 9p:ohn too/ place in ,;;3, eAuit# considerations dictate that respondent@s
tenure e computed from ,;<8, the #ear when respondent started wor/in& for 9p:ohn..
>FERE?ORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIA))H 7RANTE%. The Novemer 01,
211. %ecision and Ma# ., 2113 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA67.R. "P No. 11083 are
RE'ER"E% and "ET A"I%E.
In view of the aove disAuisitions, petitioners are ordered to pa# respondent separation pa# # wa#
of financial assistance eAuivalent to one6half 4,M25 month pa# for ever# #ear of service.
"O OR%ERE%.
Carpio 4Chairperson5, Nachura, Aad and Mendo(a, **., concur.
Petition partiall# &ranted, :ud&ment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.DEver# part of the Constitution is to e &iven effect, and the Constitution is to e read and
understood as a harmonious wholeDGfull control and supervisionI # the "tate must e understood
as one that does not preclude the le&itimate eCercise of mana&ement prero&atives # the forei&n
contractor. 4)a !u&al6!@)aan Trial Association, Inc. vs. Ramos, --. "CRA , K211-L5
The &rantin& of a onus is asicall# a mana&ement prero&ative which cannot e forced upon the
emplo#er who ma# not e oli&ed to assume the onerous urden of &rantin& onuses or other
enefits aside from the emplo#ees@ asic salaries or wa&es. 4Protacio vs. )a#a Manan&ha#a $ Co.,
.82 "CRA -,< K211;L5
8 |P h a r ma c i a

Potrebbero piacerti anche