ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION CORPORATION
. CA and POTENCIANO L. GALANIDA
vs
G.R. No. 144412 November 18, 200
the private respondent without 6ust cause considering family consideraons3 8< the transfer is a demoon since the *acolod and 2agbilaran branches were smaller than the ;akosalem branch, a regional o(ce, and because the bank wanted him, an assistant manager manager,, to replace replace an assista assistant nt account accountant ant in the 2agbilara agbilaran n branch3 branch3 8= the
Carpio, J.
terminaon was illegal for lack of due process as no hearing appears to have been conducted and that peoner failed to send a terminaon noce and instead issued a
Facts:
7emo merely stang a noce of terminaon would be issued, but peoner did not Private Private respondent respondent is an employee employee of peoner peoner,, hired hired as an account accountant ant--
issue any noce3 and 8> peoner peoner dismissed dismissed private private responden respondentt in bad faith,
bookkeeper and eventually promoted as an assistant manager which included his
tantamount tantamount to an unfair labor pracce as the dismissal undermined the la+er$s right to
transfer transfer to several branches nine mes. His appointment was covered covered by a !oce of
security of tenure and e1ual protecon of the laws. 2he ruling of !/5) was later
Personn Personnel el "con# "con# which provides provides as one of the condio condions ns of employment employment the
a(rmed by the )ourt of "ppeals.
provision on peoner$s right to transfer employees on as a regular appointment as the need arises in the interest of maintaining smooth smooth and uninterrupted service to the public.
?ssues: 9.
@H%2H @H%2H%5 %5 2H%5% ?0 /%A"/ /%A"/ *"0?0 *"0?0 ?! P%2?2? P%2?2?B!% B!%5$0 5$0 %C%5)?0 %C%5)?0% % BF ?20
<.
@H%2 @H%2H% H%5 5
%&ecng %&ecng a rotaon'movement rotaon'movement of o(cers assigned in the )ebu )ebu homebase, peoner listed respondent as second in the order of priority of assistant assistant managers to
7"!"A%7%!2 P5%5BA"2?D%. P5?D P5?D" "2%
5%0P 5%0PB! B!E% E%!2 !2$0 $0
5%F 5%F0" 0"//
2B
25" 25"!0F% !0F%5 5
be assigned assigned outside outside of )ebu )ity. )ity. Howeve Howeverr, private private responde respondent nt refused refused to be
)B!02?22 )B!02?22%0 %0 D?B/"2?B!0 BF )B7P )B7P"!G 5/%0 @"55"! @"55"!2?!A 2?!A 2H%
transferred transferred to *acolod )ity in a le+er by reason of parental obligaons, obligaons, epenses, and
P%!"/2G BF E?07?00"/.
the anguish that would result if he is away from his family. family. He thereaer thereaer led a
=.
@H%2H%5 P%2?2?B!%5 E?0)5?7?!" E?0)5?7?!"2%E 2%E "A"?!02 "A"?!02 P5?D"2% P5?D"2% 5%0PB!E%!2 5%0PB!E%!2
>.
@H%2 @H%2H% H%5 5
complaint before the /abor "rbiter for construcve dismissal. 0ubse1uently, peoner informed private respondent that he was to report to
?! E?5%)2?!A H?0 25"!0F%5.
the 2agbilaran )ity *ranch, however, private respondent again refused. "s a result,
P5?D P5?D" "2%
5%0P 5%0PB! B!E% E%!2$ !2$0 0
25"! 25"!0F 0F%5 %5
)B!0 )B!02? 2?2 22% 2%0 0
"
E%7B2?B!.
peoner warned and re1uired him to follow the said orders3 otherwise, he shall be
.
@H%2H%5 @H%2H%5 P%2?2? P%2?2?B!%5 B!%5 ?0 ?0 )B77?22 )B77?22%E %E /P /P.
penali4ed under the company$s company$s discipline policy. policy. Furthermore, private respondent was
I.
@H%2 @H%2H% H%5 5 "//? "//?%E %E *"!J *"!J "FFB "FFB5E 5E%E %E P5?D P5?D" "2% 5%0P 5%0PB! B!E% E%!2 !2 E% E%
re1uired to eplain and defend himself. 2he la+er replied stang that whether he be
P5B)%00.
suspended or dismissed, it would all the more establish and forfy his complaint pending pending before before the !/5) and further further charges charges peoner with discrimina discriminaon on and
Held:
favori favorism sm in ordering ordering his transfe transferr. He further further alleges alleges that the manageme management$ nt$ss
9. Ges. Ges. 2he rule is that the transfer transfer of an employee employee ordinarily lies within the
discriminatory discriminatory act of t ransferring ransferring only the long staying accountants accountants of )ebu in the guise
ambit of the employer$s prerogaves. 2he employer eercises the prerogave to
of its eercise of management prerogave when in truth and in fact, the ulterior
transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the re1uirement of its
move move is to accommo accommodate date some new o(cers who happen happen to en6oy en6oy favora favorable ble
business, provided the transfer transfer does not result in demoon in rank or diminuon
connecon with management.
of the employee$s salary, benets and other privileges. ?n illegal dismissal cases,
"s a result, peoner, through a 7emo, informed private respondent that "llied *ank is terminang him. 2he reasons given for for the dismissal were: 89 connued refusal to be transferred from the ;akosalem, )ebu )ity branch3 and 8< his refusal to report for work despite the denial of his applicaon for addional vacaon leave. 2he /abor /abor "rbite "rbiterr held held that that peo peoner ner had abuse abused d its manag manageme ement nt prerogave in ordering private respondent$s transfer and the refusal by the la+er did not amount to insubordinaon. insubordinaon. 2he !/5) likewise ruled that: 89 peoner terminated
the employer has the burden of showing that the transfer is not unnecessary, inconvenient inconvenient and pre6udicial to the displaced employee. <. Ges. Private Private respon responden dentt was was well well aware aware of peon peoner$ er$ss policy policy of periodically transferring transferring personnel to di&erent branches. 2he assignment to the di&erent branches of "llied *ank was a condion of his employment and he consented to this condion when he signed the !oce of Personnel "con.
2he )ourt cannot accept the proposion that when an employee
opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or
opposes his employer$s decision to transfer him to another work place, there
rebut the evidence presented against him.
being no bad faith or underhanded moves on the part of either party, it is the
8iii " wri+en noce of terminaon served on the employee
employee$s wishes that should be made to prevail.
indicang that upon due consideraon of all the circumstances,
2he refusal to obey a valid transfer order constutes willful disobedience
grounds have been established to 6usfy his terminaon.
of a lawful order of an employer. %mployees may ob6ect to, negoate and seek
2he rst wri+en noce was embodied in "llied *ank$s le+er of 9= ;une
redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as un6ust or
9LL>. 2he rst noce re1uired private respondent to eplain why no disciplinary
illegal. However, unl and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or
acon should be taken against him for his refusal to comply with the transfer orders.
improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their
Bn the re1uirement of a hearing, the )ourt has held that the essence of due process is
peril. 2herefore, private respondent$s connued refusal to obey "llied *ank$s
simply an opportunity to be heard. "n actual hearing is not necessary. 2he echange of
transfer orders warrants 6ust cause in his dismissal in accordance with "rcle
several le+ers gave him an opportunity to respond to the charges against him.
8a of the /abor )ode and thus not entled to reinstatement or to separaon pay.
2he 7emo, although caponed 2ransfer and 5eassignment,# did not
=. !o. "llied *ank$s le+er of 9= ;une 9LL> showed that at least 9>
preclude it from being a noce of terminaon. 2he )ourt has held that the nature of
accounng o(cers and personnel from various branches, including private
an instrument is characteri4ed not by the tle given to it but by its body and
respondent, were transferred to other branches. "llied *ank did not single him
contents. 7oreover, private respondent himself regarded the 7emo as a noce of
out. 2he same le+er eplained that he was second in line for assignment
terminaon. 2he 7emo shows that it une1uivocally informed private respondent of
outside )ebu because he had been in )ebu for seven years already. ?t must be
"llied *ank$s decision to dismiss him and discussed the ndings of the ?nvesgaon
noted that none of the other transferees 6oined private respondents in his
)ommi+ee that served as grounds for the dismissal. ?n addion, the 7emo also
complaint or corroborated his allegaons of widespread discriminaon and
refuted the charges of discriminaon and demoon.
favorism.
However, the 7emo su&ered from certain errors. "lthough the 7emo stated
>. !o. !o evidence was presented showing that the transfer would
that terminaon was to be e&ecve as of 9 0eptember 9LL>, the 7emo bore the
diminish his salary, benets, or privileges. Bn the contrary, peoner$s le+er
date K 0eptember 9LL>. 7ore importantly, private respondent only received a copy of
of 9= ;une 9LL> assured private respondent that he would not su&er any
the 7emo on Bctober 9LL>, or more than a month aer the supposed date of his
reducon in rank or grade, and that the transfer would involve the same rank,
dismissal. 2o be e&ecve, a wri+en noce of terminaon must be served on the
dues and obligaons.
employee. "llied *ank could not terminate him on 9 0eptember 9LL> because he had
. !o. nfair labor pracces relate only to violaons of the constuonal
not received as of that date the noce of "llied *ank$s decision to dismiss him. 2he
right of workers and employees to self-organi4aon# and are limited to the acts
dismissal could only take e&ect on Bctober 9LL>, upon his receipt of the 7emo. For
enumerated in "rcle <>K of the /abor )ode, none of which applies to the
this reason, private respondent is entled to backwages for the period from 9
present case. 2here is no evidence that private respondent took part in forming a
0eptember 9LL> to > Bctober 9LL>.
union, or even that a union eisted in "llied *ank. I. Ges. 2o be e&ecve, a dismissal must comply with 0econ < 8d, 5ule 9, *ook D? of the Bmnibus 5ules ?mplemenng the /abor )ode which provides: For terminaon of employment based on 6ust causes as dened in "rcle
Fallo: )" and !/5) a(rmed. )ase is remanded to the /abor "rbiter for the computaonof the backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benets, due to private respondent from 9 0eptember 9LL> unl > Bctober 9LL>. /abor
"rbiter Eominador ".
"lmirante
and
"+y.
/oreto
7.
Eurano
are "E7B!?0H%E to be more careful in cing the decisions of the 0upreme )ourt in the future 8Dosch v. NLRC).
