Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc Albayda

12/1/2014
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME628
against a defaulting debtor. Thus, it could not be faulted if

it resorts to foreclosure through a special sheriff.
(Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Doyon, 582 SCRA
403 [2009])
o0o
G.R. No. 172724.August 23, 2010.*
PHARMACIA and UPJOHN, INC. (now PFIZER

PHILIPPINES, INC.), ASHLEY MORRIS, ALEDA CHU,
JANE MONTILLA & FELICITO GARCIA, petitioners, vs.
RICARDO P. ALBAYDA, JR., respondent.
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 equipped for this task Exceptions.As a
general 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 equipped
for this task. However, there are instances in which factual issues
may be resolved by this Court, to wit: (1) the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture
(2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken (3) there is grave
abuse of discretion (4) the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts (5) the findings of fact are conflicting
(6) the CA goes beyond the issues of the case, and its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees (7)
the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the
trial court (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based (9) the facts
set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioners main and
reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent and (10) the
findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014a04bc626c71224d8f000a0082004500cc/p/AMN594/?username=Guest
1/32
12/1/2014
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
545
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
545
Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.
Labor Law Management Prerogatives Transfers It is a

management prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one
office or area of operation to another, provided there is no
demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other
privileges, and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made
in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion
without sufficient cause.Juris
pru
dence recognizes the exercise
of management prerogative to transfer or assign employees from
one office or area of operation to another, provided there is no
demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other
privileges, and the action is not motivated by discrimination,
made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or
demotion without sufficient cause. To determine the validity of
the transfer of employees, the employer must show that the
transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the
employee nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution
of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer
fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employees transfer shall
be tantamount to constructive dismissal.
Same Same Same Findings of fact of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), affirming those of the LA, are
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed if they are
supported by substantial evidence.The rule in our jurisdiction is
that findings of fact of the NLRC, affirming those of the LA, are
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed if they are
supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is an
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. As explained in Ignacio
v. CocaCola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 365 SCRA 418 (2001): x x x
Factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor
Arbiter, both bodies being deemed to have acquired expertise in
matters within their jurisdictions, when sufficiently supported by
evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are
2/32
12/1/2014
considered binding on this Court. As long as their decisions

are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the
process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by
the parties, all that is left is for the Court to stamp its
affirmation and declare its finality.
Same Same Same In the absence of arbitrariness, the Court
of Appeals should not look into the wisdom of a management
prerogative.In the absence of arbitrariness, the CA should not
have looked
546
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

into the wisdom of a management prerogative. It is the employers

prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its
employees qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move
them around in the various areas of its business operations in
order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit
to the company. As a matter of fact, while the CAs observations
may be acceptable to some quarters, it is nevertheless not
universal so as to foreclose another view on what may be a better
business decision. While it would be profitable to keep respondent
in an area where he has established contacts and therefore the
probability of him reaching and even surpassing his sales quota is
high, on the one hand, one can also make a case that since
respondent is one of petitioners best district managers, he is the
right person to turn around and improve the sales numbers in
Cagayan de Oro City, an area which in the past had been
dismally performing. After all, improving and developing a new
market may even be more profitable than having respondent stay
and serve his old market. In addition, one can even make a case
and say that the transfer of respondent is also for his professional
growth. Since respondent has been already assigned in the
Western Visayas area for 22 years, it may mean that his market
knowledge is very limited. In another territory, there will be new
and more challenges for respondent to face. In addition, one can
even argue that for purposes of future promotions, it would be
better to promote a district manager who has experience in
different markets.
Same Same Same The rule is wellsettled that labor laws
discourage interference with an employers judgment in the
3/32
12/1/2014
conduct of his businesseven as the law is solicitous of the welfare

of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to
exercise what are clearly management prerogatives.The
foregoing illustrates why it is dangerous for this Court and even
the CA to look into the wisdom of a management prerogative.
Certainly, one can argue for or against the pros and cons of
transferring respondent to another territory. Absent a definite
finding that such exercise of prerogative was tainted with
arbitrariness and unreasonableness, the CA should have left the
same to petitioners better judgment. The rule is well settled that
labor laws discourage interference with an employers judgment
in the conduct of his business. Even as the law is solicitous of the
welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer
to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. As long as
the companys exercise of the same is in good faith to ad
547
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
547
vance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or

circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid
agreements, such exercise will be upheld.
Same Same Same Salesmen The very nature of a sales man
is that it is mobile and ambulant.This Court cannot agree with
the findings of the CA that the transfer of respondent was
unreasonable, considering he had not been remiss in his
responsibilities. What the CA failed to recognize is that the very
nature of a sales man is that it is mobile and ambulant. On this
point, it bears to stress that respondent signed two documents
signifying his assent to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines.
In respondents Employment Application, he checked the box
which asks, Are you willing to be relocated anywhere in the
Philippines? In addition, in respondents Contract of
Employment, item (8) reads: You agree, during the period of your
employment, to be assigned to any work or workplace for such
period as may be determined by the company and whenever the
operations thereof require such assignment.
Same Same Same The Court has long stated that the
objection to the transfer being grounded solely upon the personal
inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by
reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to disobey an order of
4/32
12/1/2014
transfer.This Court has long stated that the objection to the

transfer being grounded solely upon the personal inconvenience or
hardship that will be caused to the employee by reason of the
transfer is not a valid reason to disobey an order of transfer. Such
being the case, respondent cannot adamantly refuse to abide by
the order of transfer without exposing himself to the risk of being
dismissed. Hence, his dismissal was for just cause in accordance
with Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.
Same Termination of Employment Due Process Even if no
actual hearing was conducted before the employer dismissed the
employee, the same is not fatal as only an ample opportunity to be
heard is what is required in order to satisfy the requirements of
due processthe requirement of due process had been met since
they were accorded a chance to explain their side of the
controversy.In
termination
proceedings
of
employees,
procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice
and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two
written notices before the termination of employment can be
effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of
548
548

the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought

and (2) the second informs the employee of the employers decision
to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as
long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily
that an actual hearing was conducted. While no actual hearing
was conducted before petitioners dismissed respondent, the same
is not fatal as only an ample opportunity to be heard is what is
required in order to satisfy the requirements of due process.
Accordingly, this Court is guided by Solid Development
Corporation Workers Association v. Solid Development
Corporation, 530 SCRA 132 (2007), (Solid), where the validity of
the dismissal of two employees was upheld notwithstanding that
no hearing was conducted, to wit: [W]ellsettled is the dictum that
the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the
essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. It
is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the employer must
furnish the employee with two written notices before the
termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises
5/32
12/1/2014
the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his

dismissal is sought and (2) the second informs the employee of
the employers decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a
hearing, on the other hand, is complied with as long as there was
an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual
hearing was conducted.
Same Same Equity Words and Phrases While an employee
dismissed for cause is generally not entitled to any financial
assistance, equity considerations, however, provide an exception
Equity has been defined as justice outside law, being ethical rather
than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law.
This Court, however, is not unmindful of previous rulings,
wherein separation pay has been granted to a validly dismissed
employee after giving considerable weight to long years of
employment. An employee who is dismissed for cause is generally
not entitled to any financial assistance. Equity considerations,
however, provide an exception. Equity has been defined as justice
outside law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the
sphere of morals than of law. It is grounded on the precepts of
conscience and not on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds
no room for application where there is law.
Same Same Same Corporate Mergers Even as the employee has
only been in service for four years at the time of separation since
the merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn took place in 1996, equity
549
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
549
considerations dictate that such employees tenure be computed

from 1978, the year when he started working for Upjohn.In the
instant case, this Court rules that an award to respondent of
separation pay by way of financial assistance, equivalent to one
half (1/2) months pay for every year of service, is equitable.
Although respondents actions constituted a valid ground to
terminate his services, the same is to this Courts mind not so
reprehensible as to warrant complete disregard of his long years
of service. It also appears that the same is respondents first
offense. While it may be expected that petitioners will argue that
respondent has only been in their service for four years since the
merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn took place in 1996, equity
considerations dictate that respondents tenure be computed from
6/32
12/1/2014
1978, the year when respondent started working for Upjohn.
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, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & Delos
Angeles for petitioners.
Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao, Valencia, Dela Paz, Dionela,
Ravina and Pandan Law Offices for respondent.
PERALTA,J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari,1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside
the November 30, 2005 Decision2 and May 5, 2006
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CAG.R. SP
No. 00386.
The facts of the case are as follows:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 853.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes GozoDadole, with Associate
Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Enrico A. Lanzanas concurring, id., at
pp. 5563.
3 Rollo, pp. 6566.
550
550

Respondent Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr. (respondent) was an

employee of Upjohn, Inc. (Upjohn) in 1978 and continued
working there until 1996 when a merger between
Pharmacia and Upjohn was created. After the merger,
respondent was designated by petitioner Pharmacia and
Upjohn (Pharmacia) as District Sales Manager assigned to
District XI in the Western Visayas area. During the period
of his assignment, respondent settled in Bacolod City.
Sometime on August 9, 1999, a district meeting was
held in Makati City wherein one of the topics discussed was
the district territorial configuration for the new marketing
and sales direction for the year 2000.
In
December
1999,
respondent
received
a
Memorandum4 announcing the sales force structure for the
7/32
12/1/2014
year 2000. In the said memorandum, respondent was

reassigned as District Sales Manager to District XII in the
Northern Mindanao area. One of the key areas covered in
District XII is Cagayan de Oro City.
In response to the memorandum, respondent wrote a
letter5 dated December 27, 1999 to Felicito M. Garcia
(Garcia), Pharmacias VicePresident for Sales and
Marketing, questioning his transfer from District XI to
District XII. Respondent said that he has always been
assigned to the Western Visayas area and that he felt that
he could not improve the sales of products if he was
assigned to an unfamiliar territory. Respondent concluded
that his transfer might be a way for his managers to
dismiss him from employment. Respondent added that he
could not possibly accept his new assignment in Cagayan
de Oro City because he will be dislocated from his family
his wife runs an established business in Bacolod City his
eleven yearold daughter is studying in Bacolod City and
his twoyearold son is under his and his wifes direct care.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 141142. See also Assignment of respondent to District XII,
p. 155.
5 Id., at pp. 167168.
551
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
551
On January 10, 2000, Garcia wrote a letter6 to

respondent denying his request to be reassigned to the
Western Visayas area. Garcia explained that the factors
used in determining assignments of managers are to
maximize business opportunities and growth and
development of personnel. Garcia stressed that other
peopleboth reprensentatives and district sales managers
have been relocated in the past and in the year 2000 re
alignment.
On February 16, 2000, respondent wrote a letter7 to
Aleda Chu (Chu), Pharmacias National Sales and External
Business Manager, reiterating his request to be reassigned
to the Western Visayas area. Respondent alleged that
during one conversation, Chu assured him that as long as
8/32
12/1/2014
he hits his sales target by 100%, he would not be

transferred. Respondent again speculated that the real
reason behind his transfer was that it was petitioners way
of terminating his employment. Respondent harped that
his transfer would compel him to lose his free housing and
his wifes compensation of P50,000.00 from her business in
Bacolod City.
In a letter8 dated March 3, 2000, Chu said that she did
not give any assurance or commitment to respondent that
he would not be transferred as long as he achieved his
100% target for 1999. Chu explained to respondent that
they are moving him to Cagayan de Oro City, because of
their need of respondents expertise to build the business
there. Chu added that the district performed dismally in
1999 and, therefore, they were confident that under
respondents leadership, he can implement new ways and
develop the sales force to become better and more
productive. Moreover, since respondent has been already in
Bacolod and Iloilo for 22 years, Chu said that exposure to a
different market environment and new challenges will
contribute to respondents development as a
_______________
6 Id., at p. 169.
7 Id., at pp. 170171.
8 Id., at pp. 172173.
552
552

manager. Finally, Chu stressed that the decision to

transfer respondent was purely a business decision.
Respondent replied through a letter9 dated March 16,
2000. Respondent likened his transfer to Mindanao as a
form of punishment as he alleged that even Police Chief
General Panfilo Lacson transferred erring and non
performing police officers to Mindanao. Respondent argued
that Chu failed to face and address the issues he raised
regarding the loss of his family income, the additional cost
of housing and other additional expenses he will incur in
Mindanao.
In a memorandum10 dated May 11, 2000, Jane B.
9/32
12/1/2014
Montilla (Montilla), Pharmacias Human Resource

Manager, notified respondent that since he has been on
sick leave since January 5, 2000 up to the present, he had
already consumed all his sick leave credits for the year
2000. Montilla stated that per company policy, respondent
would then be considered on indefinite sick leave without
pay. In another memorandum11 dated May 15, 2000,
Montilla informed respondent of the clinic schedule of the
company appointed doctor.
In a letter12 dated May 17, 2000, respondent
acknowledged his receipt of the letters from Montilla.
Respondent informed Montilla that his doctors had already
declared him fit for work as of May 16, 2000. Respondent
stated that he was already ready to take on his regular
assignment as District Sales Manager in Negros Occidental
or in any district in the Western Visayas area.
In a letter13 dated May 17, 2000, Chu expressed her
disappointment on the way respondent viewed their reason
for moving his place of assignment. Chu was likewise
disappointed with respondents opinion that with the
movement, he
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 174175.
10 Id., at p. 177.
11 Id., at p. 178.
12 Id., at pp. 180181.
13 Id., at p. 179.
553
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
553
be given additional remuneration, when in fact, such was

never done in the past and never the practice in the
industry and in the Philippines. Chu concluded that it
appeared to her that respondent would not accept any
reason for the movement and that nothing is acceptable to
him except a Western Visayas assignment. Consequently,
Chu referred the case to the Human Resource Department
for appropriate action.
Montilla met with respondent to discuss his situation.
10/32
12/1/2014
After the meeting, Montilla sent respondent a

memorandum14 wherein his request to continue his work
responsibilities in Negros Occidental or in any district in
the Western Visayas area was denied as there was no
vacant position in those areas. Montilla stressed that the
company needed respondent in Cagayan de Oro City,
because of his wealth of experience, talent and skills.
Respondent, however, was also given an option to be
assigned in Metro Manila as a position in the said territory
had recently opened when Joven Rodriguez was
transferred as Government Accounts and Special Projects
Manager. Montilla gave respondent until June 2, 2000 to
talk to his family and weigh the pros and cons of his
decision on whether to accept a post in Cagayan de Oro
City or in Manila.
In a letter15 dated May 31, 2000, respondent reiterated
the concerns he raised in his previous letters. Montilla sent
respondent another memorandum16 dated June 6, 2000,
stating that it is in the best interest of the company for
respondent to report to the Makati office to assume his new
area of assignment.
In a letter17 dated June 8, 2000, respondent told
Montilla that he will be airing his grievance before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
_______________
14 Id., at p. 182.
15 Id., at pp. 183184.
16 Id., at p. 185.
17 Id., at pp. 186187.
554
554

In a memorandum18 dated June 15, 2000, Montilla

stated that contrary to the opinion of respondent,
respondent is entitled to Relocation Benefits and Allowance
pursuant to the companys Benefits Manual. Montilla
directed respondent to report for work in Manila within 5
working days from receipt of the memorandum. In another
memorandum19 dated June 26, 2000, Montilla stated that
she had not heard from respondent since his June 8, 2000
11/32
12/1/2014
letter and that he has not replied to their last

memorandum dated June 15, 2000. Respondent was
warned that the same would be a final notice for him to
report for work in Manila within 5 working days from
receipt of the memo otherwise, his services will be
terminated on the basis of being absent without official
leave (AWOL).
On July 13, 2000, Montilla sent respondent a
memorandum20 notifying him of their decision to terminate
his services after he repeatedly refused to report for work
despite due notice, the pertinent portions of which read:
As I mentioned many times in our talks, you are in a Sales
position for which you had signed up. Your employment contract
actually states that you are willing to be assigned anywhere else
in the Philippines, wherever the company needs you sees you fit.
Metro Manila is the biggest and most advanced market we have
in the Philippines. It is where the success or failure of our
business lies. It is, therefore, the most competitive and significant
area for sales. It is the most challenging and most rewarding of all
areas. Only the best field managers are given the opportunity to
manage a territory in Metro Manila. This is why I chose Manila
over Cagayan de Oro for you in my letter dated June 6, 2000. And
because you had assured us that you were fit to work, after being
on sick leave for about five and a half months, I asked you to
assume your new assignment in Metro Manila before June 16,
2000.
_______________
18 Id., at p. 188.
19 Id., at p. 189.
20 Records, pp. 159160.
555
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
555
Before June 16, 2000, you wrote us a letter advising us that you
can not accept the new assignment in Manila. In response, we
advised you that the assignment in Manila is a business need and
for said reason you were requested to report for work within five
working days from receipt of notice. However, you failed to
comply. So we issued another memo dated June 26, 2000,
instructing you to report for work and advising you that should
12/32
12/1/2014
you continue to fail to report for work, the company shall be

constrained to terminate your employment.
In view of the foregoing, we have no alternative but to terminate
your services on the basis of absence without official leave
(AWOL) and insubordination pursuant to Article 282 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines, which shall be effective on July 19,
2000.21
On August 14, 2000, respondent filed a Complaint22

with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI,
Bacolod City against Pharmacia, Chu, Montilla and Garcia
for constructive dismissal. Also included in the complaint
was Ashley Morris, Pharmacias President. Since
mandatory conciliation failed between the parties, both
sides were directed to submit their position papers. On July
12, 2002, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision23
dismissing the case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint against
respondents in the aboveentitled case is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.24
Respondent appealed to the NLRC. In a Decision25 dated

July 26, 2004, the NLRC dismissed the appeal, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
_______________
21 Id.
22 Id., at pp. 12.
23 Rollo, pp. 262290.
24 Id., at p. 290.
25 Id., at pp. 315328.
556
556

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of

complainant is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision
of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED en toto.
SO ORDERED.26
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration,27 which

13/32
12/1/2014
was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution28 dated November

10, 2004.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari29
before the CA.
On November 30, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision
ruling in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is hereby
given due course and the Resolution dated November 10, 2004
and the Decision dated July 26, 2004 of the NLRC Fourth
Division in NLRC Case No. V0005212000 (RAB Case No. 0608
106502000), are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the National Labor
Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI,
Bacolod City, for the proper determination of the petitioners
claims.
SO ORDERED.30
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which

was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution dated May
5, 2006.
Hence, herein petition, with petitioner raising a lone
assignment of error to wit:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (CEBU
CITY) CAN REVERSE OR SET ASIDE THE FACTUAL AND
LEGAL FINDINGS OF THE NLRC WHICH WAS BASED ON
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THERE IS NO
SHOWING
_______________
26 Id., at p. 327.
27 Id., at pp. 329338.
28 Id., at pp. 352353.
29 Id., at pp. 354380.
30 Id., at pp. 6263.
557
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
557
OF PALPABLE ERROR OR THAT THE FINDINGS OF

FACTS OF THE LABOR ARBITER IS CONTRARY TO
14/32
12/1/2014
THAT OF THE NLRC.31
The petition is meritorious.

As a general 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.32 This Court
leaves the evaluation of facts to the trial and appellate
courts which are better equipped for this task.
However, there are instances in which factual issues
may be resolved by this Court, to wit: (1) the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and
conjecture (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion (4) the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts (5) the findings of fact
are conflicting (6) the CA goes beyond the issues of the
case, and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellees (7) the findings of fact of the
CA are contrary to those of the trial court (8) said
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based (9) the facts set forth in
the petition, as well as in the petitioners main and reply
briefs, are not disputed by the respondent and (10) the
findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record.33
In the present case, this Court is prompted to evaluate
the findings of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA which are
diametrically opposed.
_______________
31 Id., at p. 25.
32 CocaCola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Daniel, G.R. No. 156893, June 21,
2005, 460 SCRA 494, 503.
33 R & E Transport, Inc. v. Latag, 467 Phil. 355, 365 422 SCRA 698,
705 (2004).
558
558

Petitioners argue that the CA erred when it reversed the

factual and legal findings of the NLRC which affirmed the
decision of the LA. Petitioners contend that it is well
15/32
12/1/2014
established that factual findings of administrative agencies

and quasijudicial bodies are accorded great respect and
finality and are not to be disturbed on appeal unless
patently erroneous.
After a judicious examination of the records herein, this
Court sustains the findings of the LA and the NLRC which
are more in accord with the facts and law of the case.
On
petitioners
exercise
of
management
prerogative
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management
prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office
or area of operation to another, provided there is no
demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and
other privileges, and the action is not motivated by
discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of
punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.34
To determine the validity of the transfer of employees,
the employer must show that the transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee
nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of
his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the
employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the
employees transfer shall be tantamount to constructive
dismissal.35
_______________
34 Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation v. Aguinaldo,
G.R. No. 149974, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 229, 239 Mendoza v. Rural
Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 756, 765766.
35 Floren Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, 497 Phil. 458,
473 458 SCRA 128, 145 (2005) Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply,
Inc. v. NLRC, 334 Phil. 84, 95 266 SCRA 97, 109 (1997).
559
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
559
Both the LA and the NLRC ruled that the reassignment

of respondent was a valid exercise of petitioners
management prerogative.
The LA shared petitioners posture that the transfer of
respondent was a valid exercise of a legitimate
16/32
12/1/2014
management
prerogative
to
maximize
business
opportunities, growth and development of personnel and
that the expertise of respondent was needed to build the
companys business in Cagayan de Oro City which dismally
performed in 1999.36
In addition, the LA explained that the reassignment of
respondent was not a demotion as he will also be assigned
as a District Sales Manager in Mindanao or in Metro
Manila and that the notice of his transfer did not indicate
that his emoluments will be reduced. Moreover, the LA
mentioned that respondent was entitled to Relocation
Benefits and Allowance in accordance with petitioners
Benefits Manual.
On respondents allegation that his family stands to lose
income from his wifes business, the LA ruled:
The allegation of complainant that his income will be affected
because his wife who is doing business in Bacolod City and earns
P50,000.00, if true, should not be taken in consideration of his
transfer. What is contemplated here is the diminution of the
salary of the complainant but not his wife. Besides, even if
complainant may accept his new assignment in Cagayan de Oro
or in Metro Manila, his wife may still continue to do her business
in Bacolod City. Anyway, Bacolod City and Manila is just one (1)
hour travel by plane.37
Lastly, the LA pointed out that in respondents contract

of employment, he agreed to be assigned to any work or
workplace as may be determined by the company whenever
the operations require such assignment.
The NLRC affirmed in toto the findings of the LA. The
NLRC ruled that petitioners restructuring move was a
valid
_______________
36 Rollo, p. 281.
37 Id., at p. 284.
560
560

exercise of its management prerogative and authorized

17/32
12/1/2014
under the employment contract of respondent, to wit:

We do not see in the records any evidence to prove that the
restructuring move of respondent company was done with ill
motives or with malice and bad faith purposely to constructively
terminate complainants employment. Such misinterpretation or
misguided supposition by complainant is belied by the fact that
respondents officers had in several communications officially sent
to complainant, expressly recognized complainants expertise and
capabilities as a top sales man and manager for which reason the
respondent company needs his services and skills to energize the
lowperforming areas in order to maximize business opportunities
and to afford complainant an opportunity for further growth and
development. Complainant persistently refused instead of taking
this opportunity as a challenge after all, the nature of
employment of a sales man or sales manager is that it is mobile or
ambulant being always seeking for possible areas to market goods
and services. He totally forgot the terms and conditions in his
employment contract, stated in part, thus:
xxxx
You agree, during the period of employment, to be assigned to
any work or workplace for such period as may be determined by
the company and whenever the operations thereof require such
assignment.38
The rule in our jurisdiction is that findings of fact of the

NLRC, affirming those of the LA, are entitled to great
weight and will not be disturbed if they are supported by
substantial evidence.39 Substantial evidence is an amount
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate
_______________
38 Id., at pp. 323324.
39 Western Shipping Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 323 Phil. 479, 484 253
SCRA 405, 410 (1996).
561
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
561
to justify a conclusion.40 As explained in Ignacio v. Coca

Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc:41
18/32
12/1/2014
x x x Factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the

Labor Arbiter, both bodies being deemed to have acquired
expertise in matters within their jurisdictions, when sufficiently
supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not
finality, and are considered binding on this Court. As long as
their decisions are devoid of any unfairness or
arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the
evidence proffered by the parties, all that is left is for the
Court to stamp its affirmation and declare its finality.42
Based on the foregoing, this Court rules that the CA had

overstepped its legal mandate by reversing the findings of
fact of the LA and the NLRC as it appears that both
decisions were based on substantial evidence. There is no
proof of arbitrariness or abuse of discretion in the process
by which each body arrived at its own conclusions. Thus,
the CA should have deferred to such specialized agencies
which are considered experts in matters within their
jurisdictions.
Moreover, what is objectionable with the CA decision is
that in finding that the reassignment of respondent was
arbitrary and unreasonable it had, in effect, imposed on
petitioners its own opinion or judgment on what should
have been a purely business decision, to wit:
Discussing the issues jointly, a perusal of the records shows
that there was no overwhelming evidence to prove that petitioner
was terminated for a just and valid cause. Public respondent had
overlooked the fact that the reassignment of petitioner was
arbitrary and unreasonable as the same was in contrast to the
purposes espoused by private respondents. Undoubtedly,
petitioner is a complete alien to the territory and as no
established contacts therein,
_______________
40 Madlos v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115365, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 248, 257.
41 417 Phil. 747 365 SCRA 418 (2001).
42 Id., at p. 753 p. 424. (Emphasis supplied.)
562
562

thus, he cannot be effective nor can he maximize profits. It cannot

19/32
12/1/2014
also contribute to his professional growth and development

considering that he had already made a mark on his territory by
virtue of his twentytwo (22) long years of valuable service.
Considering the quality of his performance in his territory, the
private respondents cannot therefore reason out that they are
merely exercising their management prerogative for it would be
unreasonable since petitioner has not been amiss in his
responsibilities. Furthermore, it would undeniably cause undue
inconvenience to herein petitioner who would have to relocate,
disrupting his familys peaceful living, and with no additional
monthly remuneration.43
In the absence of arbitrariness, the CA should not have

looked into the wisdom of a management prerogative. It is
the employers prerogative, based on its assessment and
perception of its employees qualifications, aptitudes, and
competence, to move them around in the various areas of
its business operations in order to ascertain where they
will function with maximum benefit to the company.44
As a matter of fact, while the CAs observations may be
acceptable to some quarters, it is nevertheless not
universal so as to foreclose another view on what may be a
better business decision. While it would be profitable to
keep respondent in an area where he has established
contacts and therefore the probability of him reaching and
even surpassing his sales quota is high, on the one hand,
one can also make a case that since respondent is one of
petitioners best district managers, he is the right person to
turn around and improve the sales numbers in Cagayan de
Oro City, an area which in the past had been dismally
performing. After all, improving and developing a new
market may even be more profitable than having
respondent stay and serve his old market. In addition, one
can even make a case and say that the transfer of
respondent is also for his professional growth. Since
respondent has been
_______________
43 Rollo, pp. 6061.
44 PNOCEDC v Abella, 489 Phil. 515, 537 448 SCRA 549, 568 (2005)
563
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

563
20/32
12/1/2014
already assigned in the Western Visayas area for 22 years,

it may mean that his market knowledge is very limited. In
another territory, there will be new and more challenges
for respondent to face. In addition, one can even argue that
for purposes of future promotions, it would be better to
promote a district manager who has experience in different
markets.
The foregoing illustrates why it is dangerous for this
Court and even the CA to look into the wisdom of a
management prerogative. Certainly, one can argue for or
against the pros and cons of transferring respondent to
another territory. Absent a definite finding that such
exercise of prerogative was tainted with arbitrariness and
unreasonableness, the CA should have left the same to
petitioners better judgment. The rule is well settled that
labor laws discourage interference with an employers
judgment in the conduct of his business. Even as the law is
solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect
the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly
management prerogatives. As long as the companys
exercise of the same is in good faith to advance its interest
and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements,
such exercise will be upheld.45
In addition, this Court cannot agree with the findings of
the CA that the transfer of respondent was unreasonable,
considering he had not been remiss in his responsibilities.
What the CA failed to recognize is that the very nature of a
sales man is that it is mobile and ambulant. On this point,
it bears to stress that respondent signed two documents
signifying his assent to be assigned anywhere in the
Philippines. In respondents Employment Application,46 he
checked the box which asks, Are you willing to be relocated
anywhere in the
_______________
45 Union Carbide Labor Union v. Union Carbide Phils., Inc., G.R. No.
41314, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 554, 557 National Federation of
Labor Unions (NAFLU) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
90739, October 3, 1991, 202 SCRA 346.
46 Rollo, pp. 138140.
21/32
12/1/2014
564
564

Philippines?47 In addition, in respondents Contract of

Employment,48 item (8) reads:
You agree, during the period of your employment, to be
assigned to any work or workplace for such period as may be
determined by the company and whenever the operations thereof
require such assignment.49
Even if respondent has been performing his duties well

it does not mean that petitioners hands are tied up that
they can no longer reassign respondent to another
territory. And it is precisely because of respondents good
performance that petitioners want him to be reassigned to
Cagayan de Oro City so that he could improve their
business there.
In Abbott Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission,50 which involved a complaint filed
by a medical representative against his employer drug
company for illegal dismissal for allegedly terminating his
employment when he refused to accept his reassignment to
a new area, the Court upheld the right of the drug company
to transfer or reassign its employee in accordance with its
operational demands and requirements. The ruling of the
Court therein, quoted hereunder, also finds application in
the instant case:
Therefore, Bobadilla had no valid reason to disobey the order
of transfer. He had tacitly given his consent thereto when he
acceded to the petitioners policy of hiring sales staff who are
willing to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines which is
demanded by petitioners business.
By the very nature of his employment, a drug salesman or
medical representative is expected to travel. He should anticipate
reassignment according to the demands of their business. It
would be a poor drug corporation which cannot even
assign its
_______________
47 Id., at p. 139.
22/32
12/1/2014
48 Id., at pp. 130131.

49 Id., at p. 131.
50 G.R. No. L76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713.
565
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
565
representatives or detail men to new markets calling for

opening or expansion or to areas where the need for
pushing its products is great. More so if such
reassignments are part of the employment contract.51
On the existence of grounds to dismiss respondent

from the service
Because of respondents adamant refusal to be
reassigned, the LA ruled that petitioners had valid grounds
to terminate his employment, to wit:
As early as in December 27, 1999, complainant already
signified his refusal to accept his new assignment in Cagayan de
Oro. Complainant was on sick leave since January 5, 2000 up to
May 11, 2000, for about four (4) months and he already consumed
his leave credits up to March 2000. Hence, starting April 2000 he
was already on indefinite leave without pay.
xxxx
In his letter dated May 17, 2000, addressed to respondent Jane
B. Montilla, complainant informed her that his doctors have
already declared him fit for work as of May 16, 2000, and he was
ready to assume to his regular assignment as District Sales
Manager of Negros Occidental. This is a strong indication that
complainant really does not want to accept his new assignment
either in Cagayan de Oro or in Metro Manila, which is clearly a
defiance of the lawful order of his employer, and a ground to
terminate his services pursuant to Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Notwithstanding his adamant refusal to resume working to his
new assignment in Metro Manila, complainant was still given by
respondent Montilla another chance to think it over up to June 2,
2000. By way of reply, complainant, in his letter dated May 31,
2000 to Ms. Montilla, he clearly expressed his disagreement to his
transfer and would rather seek justice elsewhere in another
forum.
But still the respondent company, notwithstanding the position
taken by complainant in his letter dated May 31, 2000 that he is
refusing his transfer gave complainant until June 16, 2000 to
23/32
12/1/2014
recon
_______________
51 Id., at p. 719. (Emphasis supplied.)
566
566

sider his position. In a letter dated June 5, 2000, respondent

Montilla gave complainant a period of five (5) days from receipt
thereof to report to Manila, but still complainant did not comply.
Ms. Montilla sent complainant a final notice dated June 26, 2000
for him to report to Manila within five (5) working days from
receipt of the same, with a warning that his failure to do so, the
company would be constraint to terminate his services for being
absent without official leave.
Finally, is was only on July 19, 2000, when the services of
complainant was terminated by respondent company through its
Human Resource Manager on the ground of absence without leave
and insubordination pursuant to Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Clearly, the complainant had abandoned his work by reason of
his being on AWOL as a consequence of vigorous objection to his
transfer to either Cagayan de Oro or Metro Manila. The long
period of absence of complainant without official leave from April
to July 19, 2000 is more than sufficient ground to dismiss him.
The refusal of complainant to accept his transfer of assignment is
a clear willful disobedience of the lawful order of his employer and
a ground to terminate his services under Article 282, par. (a) of
the Labor Code, as amended. The series of chances given
complainant to report for work, coupled by his adamant refusal to
report to his new assignment, is a conclusive indication of willful
disobedience of the lawful orders of his employer.52
In addition, the NLRC also ruled that respondent was

guilty of insubordination, thus:
Apparently, complainant, by his unjustified acts of refusing to
be transferred either to Mindanao or Manila for personal reasons,
absent any bad faith or malice on the part of respondents, has
deliberately ignored and defied lawful orders of his employer. An
employee who refuses to be transferred, when such transfer is
valid, is guilty of insubordination. x x x53
24/32
12/1/2014
Based on the foregoing, this Court rules that the

findings of the LA and the NLRC are supported by
substantial evidence. The LA clearly outlined the steps
taken by petitioners and the
_______________
52 Rollo, pp. 286287.
53 Id., at p. 325.
567
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
567
manner by which respondent was eventually dismissed.

The NLRC, for its part, explained why respondent was
guilty of insubordination. No abuse of discretion can,
therefore, be attributed to both agencies, and the CA was
certainly outside its mandate in reversing such findings.
This Court has long stated that the objection to the
transfer being grounded solely upon the personal
inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the
employee by reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to
disobey an order of transfer.54 Such being the case,
respondent cannot adamantly refuse to abide by the order
of transfer without exposing himself to the risk of being
dismissed. Hence, his dismissal was for just cause in
accordance with Article 282(a)55 of the Labor Code.
The CA, however, ruled that respondent was not guilty
of insubordination, to wit:
As to the findings of insubordination, the records
show that petitioner was not guilty of such offense. For
insubordination to exist, the order must be reasonable and
lawful, sufficiently known to the employee and in
connection to his duties. Where an order or rule is not
reasonable, in view of the terms of the contract of
employment and the general right of the parties, a refusal
to obey does not constitute a just cause for the employees
discharge. It is undeniable that the order given by the
company to petitioner to transfer to a place where he has
no connections, leaving his family behind, and with no
clear additional remuneration, can be considered
unreasonable and petitioners actuation cannot be
25/32
12/1/2014
considered insubordination.56
_______________
54 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Domingo, 497 Phil. 112, 125 457
SCRA 578, 592 (2005).
55 ART.282.Termination by employer.An employer may terminate
an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his
work
xxxx
56 Rollo, p. 61.
568
568

This Court cannot agree with the findings of the CA, in

view of the fact that it was an error for it to substitute its
own judgment and interfere with management
prerogatives. No iota of evidence was presented that the
reassignment of respondent was a demotion as he would
still be a District Sales Manager in Cagayan de Oro City or
in Metro Manila. Furthermore, he would be given
relocation benefits in accordance with the Benefits Manual.
If respondent feels that what he was given is less than
what is given to all other district managers who were
likewise reassigned, the onus is on him to prove such fact.
Furthermore, records reveal that respondent has been
harping on the fact that no additional remuneration would
be given to him with the transfer. However, again,
respondent did not present any evidence that additional
remuneration were being given to other district managers
who were reassigned to different locations, or that such
was the practice in the company. This Court, therefore, is
inclined to believe the statement of Chu in her May 17,
2000 letter to respondent that additional remuneration is
never given to people who are reassigned, to wit:
x x x Likewise, I am disappointed that with the movement,
you expect to be paid additional remuneration when in fact, this
has never been done in the past and never a practice within the
industry and the Philippines.57
26/32
12/1/2014
Lastly, while it is understandable that respondent does

not want to relocate his family, this Court agrees with the
NLRC when it observed that such inconvenience is
considered an employment or professional hazard which
forms part of the concessions an employee is deemed to
have offered or sacrificed in the view of his acceptance of a
position in sales.
On the observance of due process
_______________
57 Id., at p. 179.
569
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
569
The CA ruled that respondent was denied due process in

the manner he was dismissed by petitioners, to wit:
Furthermore, the finding that petitioner was afforded due
process is bereft of any legal basis. An employee must be given
notice and an ample opportunity, prior to dismissal to adequately
prepare for his defense. This is an elementary rule in labor law
that due process in dismissal cases contemplates the twin
requisites of notice and hearing. These procedural requirements
have been mandatorily imposed to the employer to accord its
employees the right to be heard. Failure of the employer to comply
with such requirements renders its judgment of dismissal void
and inexistent. A written notice from the employer containing the
causes for the dismissal must be given. The employee is then
given ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself,
appraising him of his right to counsel if he desires. Lastly, a
written notice informing the employee of the decision of the
employer, citing there reasons therefore, is given. The above
procedure was not followed in the instant case and the series of
communications and meetings cannot take the place and is
therefore not sufficient to take the place of notice and hearing.58
In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due

process consists of the twin requirements of notice and
hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two
written notices before the termination of employment can
be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the
27/32
12/1/2014
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is

sought and (2) the second informs the employee of the
employers decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a
hearing is complied with as long as there was an
opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual
hearing was conducted.59
While no actual hearing was conducted before
petitioners dismissed respondent, the same is not fatal as
only an ample opportunity to be heard is what is required
in order to satisfy
_______________
58 Id., at pp. 6162.
59 Solid Development Corporation Workers Association (SDCWAUWP)
v. Solid Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165995, August 14, 2007, 530
SCRA 132, 140141.
570
570

the requirements of due process.60 Accordingly, this Court

is guided by Solid Development Corporation Workers
Association v. Solid Development Corporation61 (Solid),
where the validity of the dismissal of two employees was
upheld notwithstanding that no hearing was conducted, to
wit:
[W]ellsettled is the dictum that the twin requirements of
notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due
process in the dismissal of employees. It is a cardinal rule in our
jurisdiction that the employer must furnish the employee with
two written notices before the termination of employment can be
effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts
or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) the second
informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him.
The requirement of a hearing, on the other hand, is complied with
as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not
necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.
In separate infraction reports, petitioners were both apprised
of the particular acts or omissions constituting the charges
against them. They were also required to submit their written
explanation within 12 hours from receipt of the reports. Yet,
28/32
12/1/2014
neither of them complied. Had they found the 12hour period too
short, they should have requested for an extension of time.
Further, notices of termination were also sent to them informing
them of the basis of their dismissal. In fine, petitioners were given
due process before they were dismissed. Even if no hearing was
conducted, the requirement of due process had been met since
they were accorded a chance to explain their side of the
controversy.62
In the case at bar, this Court finds that petitioners had

complied with the requirements of law in effecting the
dismissal of respondent. Petitioners sent respondent a first
notice in the form of a memorandum63 dated June 26, 2000,
_______________
60 Perez v. Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company, G.R. No.
152048, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 110.
61 Supra note 59.
62 Id., at pp. 140141.
63 Rollo, p. 189.
571
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
571
warning him that the same would serve as a final notice for
him to report to work in Manila within 5 working days
from receipt thereof, otherwise, his services would be
terminated on the basis of AWOL. After receiving the
memorandum, respondent could have requested for a
conference with the assistance of counsel, if he so desired.
Like in Solid, had respondent found the time too short, he
should have responded to the memorandum asking for
more time. It, however, appears to this Court that
respondent made no such requests. On July 13, 2000,
petitioners sent another memorandum64 notifying
respondent that they are terminating his services effective
July 19, 2000, after he repeatedly refused to report to work
despite due notice. Even if no actual hearing was
conducted, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners had
complied with the requirements of due process as all that
the law requires is an ample opportunity to be heard.
In conclusion, it bears to stress that the CA should not
29/32
12/1/2014
have disturbed the factual findings of the LA and the

NLRC in the absence of arbitrariness or palpable error.
The reassignment of respondent to another territory was a
valid exercise of petitioners management prerogative and,
consequently, his dismissal was for cause and in
accordance with the due process requirement of law.
This Court, however, is not unmindful of previous
rulings,65 wherein separation pay has been granted to a
validly dismissed employee after giving considerable
weight to long years of employment.66
An employee who is dismissed for cause is generally not
entitled to any financial assistance. Equity considerations,
how
_______________
64 Records, pp. 159160.
65 See Aparente Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil.
96 331 SCRA 82 (2000) Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Lariosa,
February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 187.
66 Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Abad, 492 Phil. 657,
667 452 SCRA 579, 590591 (2005).
572
572

ever, provide an exception. Equity has been defined as

justice outside law, being ethical rather than jural and
belonging to the sphere of morals than of law. It is
grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any
sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for
application where there is law.67
In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. National
Labor Relations Commission,68 the Court laid down the
guidelines in the grant of separation pay to a lawfully
dismissed employee, thus:
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a
measure of social justice only in those instances where the
employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the
reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual
intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or
30/32
12/1/2014
illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not
be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or
financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the
ground of social justice.69
In the instant case, this Court rules that an award to

respondent of separation pay by way of financial
assistance, equivalent to onehalf (1/2) months pay for
every year of service, is equitable. Although respondents
actions constituted a valid ground to terminate his
services, the same is to this Courts mind not so
reprehensible as to warrant complete disregard of his long
years of service. It also appears that the same is
respondents first offense. While it may be expected that
petitioners will argue that respondent has only been in
their service for four years since the merger of Pharmacia
and Upjohn took place in 1996, equity considerations
dictate that respondents tenure be computed from 1978,
the year when respondent started working for Upjohn.
_______________
67 Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note
65.
68 No. L80609, August 23, 1988, 164 SCRA 671.
69 Id., at p. 682.
573
VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010
573
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

PARTIALLY GRANTED. The November 30, 2005 Decision
and May 5, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA
G.R. SP No. 00386 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
In view of the above disquisitions, petitioners are
ordered to pay respondent separation pay by way of
financial assistance equivalent to onehalf (1/2) month pay
for every year of service.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Abad and Mendoza,
JJ., concur.
31/32
12/1/2014
Petition partially granted, judgment and resolution

reversed and set aside.
Notes.Every part of the Constitution is to be given
effect, and the Constitution is to be read and understood as
a harmonious wholefull control and supervision by the
State must be understood as one that does not preclude the
legitimate exercise of management prerogatives by the
foreign contractor. (La BugalBLaan Tribal Association,
Inc. vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1 [2004])
The granting of a bonus is basically a management
prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer who
may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of
granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the
employees basic salaries or wages. (Protacio vs. Laya
Mananghaya & Co., 582 SCRA 417 [2009])
o0o
Copyright2014CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
32/32

Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc Albayda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc Albayda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc Albayda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/1/2014

against a defaulting debtor. Thus, it could not be faulted if

G.R. No. 172724.August 23, 2010.*

PHARMACIA and UPJOHN, INC. (now PFIZER

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

Labor Law Management Prerogatives Transfers It is a

considered binding on this Court. As long as their decisions

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

into the wisdom of a management prerogative. It is the employers

conduct of his businesseven as the law is solicitous of the welfare

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

vance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or

transfer.This Court has long stated that the objection to the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought

the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

considerations dictate that such employees tenure be computed

1978, the year when respondent started working for Upjohn.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondent Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr. (respondent) was an

year 2000. In the said memorandum, respondent was

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

On January 10, 2000, Garcia wrote a letter6 to

he hits his sales target by 100%, he would not be

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

manager. Finally, Chu stressed that the decision to

Montilla (Montilla), Pharmacias Human Resource

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

be given additional remuneration, when in fact, such was

After the meeting, Montilla sent respondent a

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In a memorandum18 dated June 15, 2000, Montilla

letter and that he has not replied to their last

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

you continue to fail to report for work, the company shall be

On August 14, 2000, respondent filed a Complaint22

Respondent appealed to the NLRC. In a Decision25 dated

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration,27 which

was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution28 dated November

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

OF PALPABLE ERROR OR THAT THE FINDINGS OF

THAT OF THE NLRC.31

The petition is meritorious.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioners argue that the CA erred when it reversed the

established that factual findings of administrative agencies

VOL. 628, AUGUST 23, 2010

Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.