GIRLY G. ICO, Petitioner, vs. SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, INC., MONICO V. JACOB an PETER !. "ERNAN#E$, Res%onents. G.R. No. &'(&)) J*+ -, )&/ "a0ts1 -STI is an educational institution duly incorporated and organize and existing under the Phili Phi lippi ppine ne laws, laws, while while Jacob Jacob and Fernan ernandez dez are are ofcers ofcers o STI the ore orerr being being the President and !hie "xecuti#e $fcer %!"$& and the latter Senior 'ice-President( -)irly )( Ico on one hand degree holder with doctorate units earned was hired as Faculty *eber by STI !ollege *a+ati a wholly-owned subsidiary o STI( She was later prooted as ean and later !$$ o STI-*a+ati( -Soetie in July ../ during the stint o Ico as !$$ o STI-*a+ati a plan o erger was executed between STI and STI-*a+ati, whereby the latter will be absorbed to STI, which was later appro#ed by S"!( 0s a result STI !ollege *a+ati ceased to exist, and STI- *a+ati was placed under STI1s "ducation *anageent i#ision( -In -In a . ..2 .2 *eo *eora rand ndu u(( Petit etitio ione nerr was was re-ap e-appo poin inte ted d as !$$ !$$ o STISTI-*a *a+a +ati ti,, and reporting directly to the 3ead thereo, herein respondent Fernandez( - onths ater, another eorandu ro STI 34 epartent was issued wherein the !$$ position o the petitioner was to be abolished, and Ico was appointed as !opliance *anager 0ccording to STI, the 5organizational re-structuring5 was underta+en 5in order to strealine operations( In the process, the positions o !hie "xecuti#e $fcer and !hie $perating $fcer o STI *a+ati were abolished( -Thereater, Fernandez suons Ico accusing her o disobedience( 0n in#estigation then was ade and she was place under Pre#enti#e Suspension( 0terwards the in#estigating coittee ound out that Ico coitted gra#e abuse o authority, alsi6cation, gross dish dishon ones esty ty,, ali align gnin ing g and and caus causin ing g intr intrig igue ues, s, co cois issi sion on o acts acts tend tendin ing g to cast cast negati#ity upon Fernandez person , and other charges, which resulted to her disissal( -Pet -Petit itio ione nerr then then 6le 6le a case case or or !ons !onstr truc ucti ti#e #e ille illega gall dis disis issal sal to 7abo 7aborr 0rbi 0rbite terr She She contends that her transer was illegal or it constituted a deotion because there was no prior notice o her transer, which places her in an ebarrassing situation( Secondly, the basis o her disissal is without basis and that it was not pro#en by ade8uate e#idence( -$n one hand respondent contend that the transer o position is a result o the erger which re8uires the abolition o Ico1s position as !$$ in order to strealine its operation thus they are in good aith( It urther argued that there was no deotion because the position o !$$ and copliance anager is o the sae ran+( -709$ -70 9$4 4 049I 049IT" T"4 4: rule ruled d that that ther there e was was an ille illega gall lly y const constru ruct cti# i#el ely y and and in bad bad ait aith h disissal by respondents in Petiole1s legally ac8uired status as regular eployee( It held that petitioner1s transer which STI claied was the result o STI1s restructuring was irregular, because at the tie o such transer, the reorganization and restructuring o STI-*a STI-*a+a +ati ti had alread already y been been a;ecte a;ected, d, and the . ..2 .2 *eora *eorandu ndu that that was iss issued ued con6rs petitioner1s appointent as !$$( *oreo#er, petitioner was appointed to the position o !opliance *anager which did not actually exist or under STI !orporate structure there there are only two copliance anager which are already occupied( 0s a result Ico was appointed to !opliance ofcer who in e;ect deoted her ran+( -<74!: -<74!: re#ersed 7abor 0rbiter ecision( It held that that any action ta+en by STI ater the erger can be reasonably concluded as one o the #alid conse8uences thereo or the regulation o anpower is a anageent prerogati#e en=oyed by STI, and it was ree to regula egulate te acco accorrding ding to its its own own disc discrretio etion n and =udg =udge ent nt all all aspe aspect cts s o peti petiti tion oner er1s 1s eployent( In this light, and since no concrete e#idence was presented by petitioner to
show that respondents acted with alice or bad aith, the <74! held that it ay not be said that the abolition o the position o STI-*a+ati !$$ was done to unduly ease her out o STI( -!0> ?pheld decision o <74!
Iss*e: @hether or not the transer o petitioner is a #alid anagerial prerogati#e and not it does not result to a illegal constructi#e disissal He+1 The Supree !ourt ruled in a#or o the Petitioner due to the ollowing reasons: First the position o STI-*a+ati !$$ was actually ne#er abolished( 0s a atter o act, soon ater petitioner was reo#ed ro the position, Fernandez was appointed to ta+e her place as STI-*a+ati !$$> his appointent was e#en publicly announced #ia an ofcial counication disseinated copany-wide( @hate#er the reason could be or Fernandez1s appointent as STI-*a+ati !$$, the act still reains that such position continued to exist( Second, petitioner1s appointent as !opliance *anager appears to be contri#ed as well( 0t the tie o petitioner1s appointent, there are only two !opliance *anager Positions within STI1s copliance departent which were already 6lled up The only positions within the departent that were at the tie #acant were those o !opliance $fcers, which are o lower ran+( In other words, petitioner could not ha#e been #alidly appointed as !opliance *anager, a position within STI that was then #ery uch occupied> i e#er, petitioner too+ the position o a ere !opliance $fcer, the only #acant position within the departent( !onstructi#e disissal exists where there is cessation o wor+ because Acontinued eployent is rendered ipossible, unreasonable or unli+ely, as an o;er in#ol#ing a deotion in ran+ or a diinution in pay1 and other bene6ts( 0ptly called a disissal in disguise or an act aounting to disissal but ade to appear as i it were not, constructi#e disissal ay, li+ewise, exist i an act o clear discriination, insensibility, or disdain by an eployer becoes so unbearable on the part o the eployee that it could oreclose any choice by hi except to orego his continued eployent( In cases o a transer o an eployee, the rule is settled that the eployer is charged with the burden o pro#ing that its conduct and action are or #alid and legitiate grounds such as genuine business necessity and that the transer is not unreasonable, incon#enient or pre=udicial to the eployee( I the eployer cannot o#ercoe this burden o proo, the eployee1s transer shall be tantaount to unlawul constructi#e disissal( BC Thus, because STI ailed to show that the transer is unreasonable and it li+ewise ailed to pro#e that the transer o petitioner or #alid and legitiate grounds, the transer o petitioner can thereore be concluded as constructi#e disissal and that it is not #alid anagerial prerogati#e(
