PLDT v. Paguio | G.R. No. 152689 | Oct.

12, 2005 | Paumig Issue:

Facts: W/N Paguio’s transfer was legal and valid

• Alfredo S. Paguio worked as the Head of the Garnet Exchange in Held:

PLDT
• In 1994, Paguio sent Rodolfo Santos, his immediate supervisor, a • Doctrine: an employer is free to regulate, according to his own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including the
letter criticizing the PLDT criteria for performance rating as unfair
transfer of employee’s. It is the employers prerogative, based on its
because they depended on manpower. He argued that the criteria
failed to recognize that exchanges with new plants could easily assessment and perception of its employees qualifications,
aptitudes, and competence, to deploy its employees in the various
outperform those with old plants.
areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will
• Despite Paguio’s criticism, the Garnet Exchange, an old plant,
function with maximum benefit to the company. An employee’s right
obtained the top rating in Greater Metro Manila (GMM)
to security of tenure does not give him such a vested right in his
• In 1996, PLDT rebalanced the manpower of the East Center which
position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change
Paguio criticized and asked for reconsideration. He claimed that it
his assignment or transfer him where he will be most useful.
was unfair to Garnet Exchange because as the oldest exchange in the
• While it may be conceded that management is in the best position to
East Center, it was disallowed to use contractors for new installations.
know its operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative
This reconsideration was denied by Santos. This denial prompted
cannot be utilized to circumvent the law and public policy on labor
Paguio to send a letter to Isabelo Ferido Jr., the First Vice President
and social justice. That prerogative accorded management should
of GMM Network Services.
not defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist: to balance
• Paguio was re-assigned as Head for Special Assignment at the Office
the conflicting interests of labor and management. By its very nature,
of the GMM East Center and asked to turn over the duties of his
management prerogative must be exercised always with the
former office to Tessie Go.
principles of fair play and justice. In particular, the employer must be
• Paguio believed that his reassignment was a disciplinary action. He
able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or
requested Ferido for a formal hearing of the charges against him and
prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or
asked the reassignment to be deferred. He also filed a complaint
a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. The
against Santos for abuse of authority.
employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer of the
• Ferido answered by sending an inter-office memo stating that Paguio
employee has complied with the foregoing test.
was not a team player and cannot accept decisions of management
• Supreme Court states that there is no credible reason for Paguio’s
which makes him insubordinate.
transfer except his criticisms of the company’s performance
• Paguio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional
evaluation methods. Garnet Exchange was doing well and excelled in
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. This was amended to illegal
the performance rating. Paguio’s performance was consistently rated
demotion later on.
as outstanding. There is no proof that Paguio refused to comply with
• The Labor Arbiter decided to uphold the validity of the transfer and
any management policy. As it stands, his transfer was not due to poor
dismissed the case. Paguio appealed to the NLRC. NLRC found the
performance. Neither was it because he was needed in the new post
transfer to be unlawful because Paguio’s comments were done in
for the new assignment was functionless and it was nothing but a title.
good faith to help his team see their strong and weak points. This
Paguios transfer could only be caused by the managements negative
made him a team player. Furthermore, Paguio’s transfer involved a
reception of his comments. It is prejudicial to Paguio because it left
diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges. NLRC
him out for a possible promotion as he was assigned to a functionless
dismissed the appeal of PLDT. CA, as appellate court, affirmed the
position with neither office nor staff.
decision of NLRC.