CHATEAU ROYALE SPORTS and COUNTRY CLUB, INC.

,
vs. RACHELLE G. BALBA and MARINEL N. CONSTANTE
G.R.  No. 197492, January 18, 2017
FACTS:
Chateu Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. hired the respondents as Account Executives on
probationary status and later promoted to Account Managers. As part of their duties as Account
Managers, they were instructed to forward all proposals, event orders and contracts for an orderly and
systematic bookings in the operation of the petitioner' s business. However, they failed to comply with
the directive. Accordingly, a notice to explain was served on them, to which they promptly responded. 
Administrative hearing was conducted and had found them to have committed acts of insubordination,
and that they were being suspended for seven days, but later lifted.
The respondents filed a complaint for illegal suspension and non-payment of allowances and
commissions; however it was later amended to include constructive dismissal based on the proposed
transfer of the respondent to Manila by reason of the alleged shortage of personnel at the Manila
Office. Despite attempts to convince them to accept the transfer to Manila, they declined because their
families were living in Nasugbu, Batangas. The Labor Arbiter ruled declaring that the respondents had
been constructively dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, and
dismissed the complaint. In the CA, it granted the respondents' appeal and ruled that the transfer of the
respondents from the office in Nasugbu, Batangas to the Manila office was not a legitimate exercise of
management prerogative and constituted constructive dismissal.

ISSUE:
Whether the transfer of employees from Batangas Office to Manila Office was a valid exercise of
management prerogative?

RULING:
Yes.
A determination of a balance between the scope and limitation of the exercise of management
prerogative and the employees' right to security of tenure is necessary.  We have to weigh and consider,
on the one hand, that:
Management Prerogative has a wide discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including
the transfer and re-assignment of employees according to the exigencies of the business; and,

On the other, that the transfer constitutes constructive dismissal when it is unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee, or involves a demotion in rank or diminution of
salaries, benefits and other privileges, or when the acts of discrimination, insensibility or
disdain on the part of the employer become unbearable for the employee, forcing him to
forego her employment.
 
Here, the petitioner duly established that, contrary to the claim of the respondents that they
had been constructively dismissed, their transfer had been an exercise of the petitioner's legitimate
management prerogative because of genuine business necessity.

BAKA LANG MAGTANONG SYA KUNG PANO DAW NAGING VALID, ito ung mga sinabi ni SC
(Instances on the case why there was valid management prerogative)
1. The resignations of the account managers and the director of sales and marketing in
the Manila office brought about the immediate need for their replacements with personnel
having the same experiences and skills.
2. Although the respondents' transfer to Manila might be potentially inconvenient for
them because it would entail additional expenses on their part aside from their being forced to
be away from their families, it was neither unreasonable nor oppressive because there would be
no demotion in rank, or without diminution of benefits and salaries.
3. The respondents did not show by substantial evidence that the petitioner was acting
in bad faith in ordering their transfer
4. The respondents, by having voluntarily affixed their signatures on their respective
letters of appointment, acceded to the terms and conditions of employment incorporated
therein. One of the terms and conditions thus incorporated was the prerogative of management
to transfer and re-assign its employees from one job to another "as it may deem necessary or
advisable,"
 ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILIPPINES), INC., and JAIME C. VICTA petitioners,
vs. NLRC and Albert Bobadilla
G.R. No. L76959 October 12, 1987

FACTS:
Complainant Bobadilla was employed with Abbot Laboratories and was designated as
professional medical representative (PMR) assigned to cover the sales territory of Sta. Cruz, Binondo and
a part of Quiapo and Divisoria, of the Metro Manila district. It has been the company’s policy and
established practice of undertaking employment movements and/or reassignments from one territorial
area to another as the exigencies of its operations require. In Bobadilla’s application for employment
with respondent company, he agreed to the following 1) that if employed, he will accept assignment in
the provinces and/or cities anywhere in the Philippines; 2) he is willing and can move into and live in the
territory assigned to him; and (3) that should any answer or statement in his application for employment
be found false or incorrect, he will be subject to immediate dismissal, if then employed.

Jaime Victa informed Bobadilla that he was being transferred to the newly opened Cagayan
territory. However, Bobadilla objected to the transfer on the grounds that it was not only a demotion
but also personal and punitive in nature without basis legally and factually. The Labor Arbiter ruled for
the respondent Victa on the ground that Bobadilla is guilty of gross insubordination. On appeal, the
respondent National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Arbiter's decision and held that herein
petitioners had no valid and justifiable reason to dismiss the complainant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the transfer of Bobadilla to Cagayan was a valid exercise of management prerogative?

RULING:

Yes. As a general rule, the right to transfer or reassign an employee is recognized as an

employer's exclusive right and the prerogative of management.

Further, the hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees has been
traditionally identified as a management prerogative subject to limitations found in law, a collective
bargaining agreement, or general principles of fair play and justice. This is a function associated with the
employer's inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even if the law is considerate
of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly
management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve
its purpose cannot be denied.

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 the 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 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.
 ALBERT O. TINIO
vs. CA, SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ALEX O. CAEG and ANASTACIO MARTIREZ
G.R. No. 171764, June 8, 2007

FACTS:
Smart Communications, Inc. employed petitioner Albert O. Tinio as its General Manager for
Visayas/Mindanao (VISMIN) Sales and Operations based in Cebu. Private respondent Alex O. Caeg,
Group Head, Sales and Distribution of SMART, under the supervision of co-respondent Anastacio
Martirez, informed petitioner of his new assignment as Sales Manager in SMART's Head Office in Makati
City, and stated that transfer was for the greater business interest of the company. However, petitioner
deferred action on his assignment.
Later, petitioner reported to SMART's Head Office in Makati and discussed with HRD Group
Head, his job description, functions, responsibilities, salary and benefits, as well as options for
relocation/transfer of his family to Manila. Thereafter, petitioner did not report for work. He instead
filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. Thus, private respondents terminated petitioner's
employment for insubordination.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was not constructively or illegally dismissed. On appeal,
the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and declared that petitioner was illegally dismissed. The
Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Decision of the NLRC and reinstated the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint; hence, appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether private respondents' act of transferring petitioner to its Head Office in Makati was a
valid exercise of management prerogative?

RULING:

Yes.
As a rule, the Court will not interfere with an employer's prerogative to regulate all aspects of
employment which include among others, work assignment, working methods and place and manner of
work. Labor laws discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. It
is consistently recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one
office to another within the business establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank or a
diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges.

The doctrine is well-settled that it is the employer's 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. This is a privilege inherent in the employer's right to control and manage his
enterprise effectively. The freedom of management to conduct its business operations to achieve its
purpose cannot be denied.

An employee's right to security of tenure does not give him a vested right to his position as
would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he will be
most useful. When his transfer 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.

In the instant case, the transfer from Cebu to Makati was not unreasonable, inconvenient or
prejudicial to the petitioner considering that it was a transfer from the provincial office to the main
office of SMART. The position would entail greater responsibilities because it would involve corporate
accounts of top establishments in Makati which are significantly greater in value than the individual
accounts in Visayas and Mindanao. In terms of career advancement, the transfer was even beneficial
and advantageous since he was being assigned the corporate accounts of the choice clients of SMART.
Moreover, the transfer was not economically inconvenient because all expenses relative thereto were to
be borne by SMART.
Also, the transfer from Cebu to Makati does not represent a demotion in rank or diminution of
salaries, benefits and other privileges. It was a lateral transfer with the same salaries, benefits and
privileges.
 AILEEN G. HERIDA
vs. F & C PAWNSHOP and JEWELRY STORE/MARCELINO FLORETE, JR.
G.R. No. 172601, April 16, 2009

FACTS:
Aileen G. Herida was an employee of respondent F & C Pawnshop and Jewelry Store owned by
respondent Marcelino Florete, Jr. She was hired as a sales clerk and eventually promoted as an appraiser
in the Bacolod City Branch. Later, the management issued a memorandum directing petitioner to report
to the Iloilo City Branch office. As petitioner refused to follow the directive, she was preventively
suspended from work for a period of 15 days. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner's complaint and ruled that petitioner was not dismissed from
her job and that she deliberately refused to obey management's directive for her to report to the Iloilo
City Branch. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that there was no illegal dismissal.
In the Court of Appeals, the appellate court upheld management's prerogative to transfer an employee.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner's transfer from the Bacolod City Branch to the Iloilo City Branch was valid
exercise of management prerogative?

RULING:
Yes. It was settled 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, petitioner cannot adamantly refuse to abide
by the order of transfer without exposing herself to the risk of being dismissed.

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.

As respondents creditably explained, and as admitted by petitioner herself,

respondents have standing policies that an employee must be single at the time of
employment and must be willing to be assigned to any of its branches in the country.
Petitioner's contention that upon getting married, she no longer bound herself to be
assigned to any of respondents' branches in the country is ridiculous. Just because an
employee gets married does not mean she can already renege on a commitment she
willingly made at the time of her employment particularly if such commitment does not
appear to be unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to her. Respondents claimed
that travel time from the Bacolod City Branch to the Iloilo City Branch will only take
about an hour by boat and that they were even willing to defray petitioner's
transportation and lodging expenses. Petitioner never disputed these matters. There is
no showing either that petitioner's transfer was only being used by respondents to
camouflage a sinister scheme of management to rid itself of an undesirable worker in
the person of petitioner.