CASE DIGEST: Peckson v. Robinsons (G.R. No. 198534)

CASE DIGEST: JENNY F. PECKSON, Petitioner, v. ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION, JODY GADIA, ROENA SARTE, and RUBY ALEX, Respondents.

FACTS: The petitioner first joined the Robinsons Supermarket Corporation (RSC) as a Sales Clerk on November 3, 1987. On October 26, 2006, she was holding the position of Category Buyer when respondent Roena Sarte (Sarte), RSCs Assistant Vice-President for Merchandising, reassigned her to the position of Provincial Coordinator, effective November 1, 2006. Claiming that her new assignment was a demotion because it was non-supervisory and clerical in nature, the petitioner refused to turn over her responsibilities to the new Category Buyer, or to accept her new responsibilities as Provincial Coordinator. Jody Gadia (Gadia) and Ruby Alex (Alex) were impleaded because they were corporate officers of the RSC.Sarte demanded an explanation from petitioner for her refusal to accept her new assignment despite written and verbal demands. Petitioner ignored the demand. Sarte issued another memorandum reiterating her demand and warning her that this could be her final chance to present her side or be deemed to have waived her right to be heard. Petitioner then replied stating that she could not accept the position of Provincial Coordinator since she saw it as a demotion. Sarte issued an instruction to petitioner in preparation for the Christmas holidays but the petitioner refused to heed.

The LA ruled that job reassignment or classification is a strict prerogative of the employer, and that the petitioner cannot refuse her transfer since both positions commanded the same salary structure. The LA also ruled that petitioners persistent refusal to accept her new position amounted to insubordination, entitling RSC to dismiss her from employment.

A month later, petitioner tendered her written forced resignation. The NLRC sustained the findings of the LA. The CA sustained the findings of the NLRC.

ISSUE: Was petitioner's transfer a demotion?

HELD: In Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation v. NLRC, held that the exercise of managements prerogative concerning the employee's work assignments is based on its assessment of the qualifications, aptitudes and competence of its employees, and by moving them around in the various areas of its business operations it can ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the company.

Under the doctrine of management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice.

Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) a transfer is a movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or salary without break in the service or a lateral movement from one position to another of equivalent rank or salary; (b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an employee for legitimate business purposes; (c) a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination or bad faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion without sufficient cause; (d) the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee. (Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. v. Julve)

As a privilege inherent in the employers right to control and manage its enterprise effectively, its freedom to conduct its business operations to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. We agree with the appellate court that the respondents are justified in moving the petitioner to another equivalent position, which presumably would be less affected by her habitual tardiness or inconsistent attendance than if she continued as a Category Buyer, a frontline position in the day-to-day business operations of a supermarket such as Robinsons.

In Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation, when the transfer of an employee is not unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial to him, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits and other privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal. DENIED.