Placido Urbanes v. CA, G.R. No. 138279, Nov. 25, 2004

G.R. No.
138379
Placido Urbanes vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Jerry Rilles worked as a security guard in Petitioners agency. The agencys contract
with SSS later then expired on June 24, 1994, in which he reported to petitioners office
on several occasions for a new assignment but to no avail.
On March 28, 1995, Rilles filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) against petitioner and his agency for illegal dismissal, illegal
deduction, and underpayment of wages, non-payment of premium pay for holiday, rest
day, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13
th
month pay, back wages and
attorneys fees.

Rilles alleged that he was informed of a vacant position but later on told that there was
no available post for him. Months after the agency offered him a post in Bataan which
he rejected as he was residing in Manila, he then asked again for an assignment but
was unsuccessful; on March 27, 1995, a post in Manila was finally offered to him but
with the condition that he sign a termination contract first; he refused such offer.

Petitioner and his agency, as respondents a quo denied Rilles allegation stating that
the latter was offered a vacant post on which he refused to accept such.

On October 31, 1995, Labor Arbiter rendered a decision against the petitioner finding
that after the complainant was relieved from his last post until the filling of the suit, there
were no assignments given to the latter. These circumstances clearly indicated
constructive illegal dismissal which entitled the complainant to his prayer for separation
pay.

Petitioner then appealed and the NLRC on January 28, 1998 affirmed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration likewise failed.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari which was referred, however, to the Court of
Appeals and was denied.

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated February 11, 1999, and the resolution dated April 22, 1999, denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Rilles was illegally dismissed by petitioner.
Whether or not the assignment offered to him in Bataan was unreasonable and
prejudicial to his interest which is tantamount to a constructive dismissal.

Ruling:

The Court finds that he was illegally dismissed by the petitioner.
It is axiomatic that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the
CA, are binding on this Court unless patently erroneous. In this case, we defer to the
factual findings of the labor arbiter, who is deemed to have acquired expertise in
matters within his jurisdiction especially since his findings were affirmed in toto by the
NLRC and the Court of Appeals.

On the next issue, as a general rule, the right to transfer or reassign employees is
recognized as an employers right and the prerogative of management provided that
said transfer does not result in a demotion in rank or diminution in salary, benefits and
other privileges of the employee; or is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to
the latter; or is not as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable
worker. As explained in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs Florendo-Flores, the
petitioner has the prerogative to transfer its guards pursuant to business exigencies; he
has the burden, however, to show that the exercise of such prerogative was not done
with grave abuse of discretion or contrary to justice and fair play.

This petitioner failed to do. While transfer of assignment which may occasion hardship
or inconvenience is allowed, this Court however shall not countenance a transfer that is
unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to employees.

Thus, respondent Rilles was constructively removed and illegally dismissed by
petitioner. He is entitled to reinstatement and back wages as a necessary consequence
of petitioners acts.

The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to give respondent separation pay, which as a rule
however, is given whenever reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained
relations. Absent any showing that reinstatement is no longer feasible in this case, we
hold that respondent should be reinstated instead.

Wherefore, the petition is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed
with the modification that petitioner is ordered to reinstate respondent Jerry Rilles and to
pay him back wages.

Placido Urbanes v. CA, G.R. No. 138279, Nov. 25, 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Placido Urbanes v. CA, G.R. No. 138279, Nov. 25, 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Placido Urbanes v. CA, G.R. No. 138279, Nov. 25, 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

You might also like