NORKIS TRADING v. GNILO, GR No. 159730 February 11, 2008 FATS!
Melvin R. Gnilo (respondent) was initially hired by Norkis Trading Co., Inc. (petitioner Norkis) as Norkis Installent Installent Collector (NIC) in !pril "#$$. Man%el Gaspar &. !lbos, 'r. (petitioner !lbos) is the enior ice*+resident o petitioner Norkis. Respondent held vario%s vario%s positions positions in the copany %ntil he was appointed appointed as Credit Credit and Collection Collection Manager o Magna -inancial ervices Gro%p, Inc.*egaspi /ranch, petitioner Norkis0 sister sister copany copany,, in charge charge o the areas o !lbay !lbay and Catand%an Catand%anes es with travel travel and transportation allowances and a service car.
! special special a%dit a%dit tea was cond%cted cond%cted in responden respondent1s t1s oice in egaspi, egaspi, !lbay ro ro March "2 to !pril 3, 4555 when it was o%nd o%t that respondent orwarded the onthly collection collection reports o the NICs %nder his s%pervision witho%t checking checking the veracity o the sae. sae. It appeare appeared d that the onthly onthly collection collection highlig highlights hts or the onths o !pril !pril to epteber "### s%bitted by respondent to the top anageent were all overstated. The top anageent was isled into believing that respondent0s area o responsibility obtained avorable collection eiciency.
Respondent was then charged by petitioners1 In6%iry !ssistance +anel (+anel) with negligence o basic d%ties and responsibilities res%lting in loss o tr%st and conidence and la7ity in directing and s%pervising his own s%bordinates.
8%rin 8%ring g the invest investiga igatio tion, n, respo respond nden entt adit aditted ted that that he was was negl neglige igent nt or ailin ailing g reg%larly check the report o each NIC %nder his s%pervision9 that he only checked rando rando the the NIC1s NIC1s onth onthly ly colle collecti ction on highl highligh ightt repo reports rts99 and and that that as a leade leader, r, he respo respons nsibl ible e or the actio actions ns o his s%bo s%bord rdina inate tes. s. :e howeve howeverr denie denied d being being la7 s%pervising his s%bordinates, as he iposed discipline on the i the need arose.
to at is in
;n May 25, 4555, petitioner Norkis thro%gh its :%an Reso%rce Manager iss%ed a eorand% placing respondent %nder "3 days s%spension witho%t pay. Respondent was then assigned to the Marketing 8ivision directly reporting to petitioner !lbos.
In a letter dated '%ly 4<, 4555, respondent re6%ested petitioner !lbos that he be assigned as ales &ngineer or to any position coens%rate with his 6%aliications. :owever, on '%ly 4$, 4555, respondent was orally appointed as Marketing !ssistant to petitioner !lbos, which position respondent s%bse6%ently ass%ed.
:owever, on ;ctober =, 4555, respondent iled with the abor !rbiter (!) a coplaint or illegal s%spension.
! r%led in avor o the petitioner.
The NRC reversed the decision o the !. The C! aired the decision o the NRC.
ISS"#! >hether or not was the transer o position is considered to be constr%ctive disissal $#LD!
%#S. T&e our' &a( )o*(+('e*'y re)o-*+e/ a*/ u&e/ '&e rero-a'+ve o a*a-ee*' 'o 'ra*(er a* eoyee ro o*e o+)e 'o a*o'&er +'&+* '&e bu(+*e(( e('ab+(&e*' , rov+/e/ '&a' '&ere +( *o /eo'+o* +* ra*4 or /++*u'+o* o &+( (aary, be*e+'( a*/ o'&er r+v+e-e( a*/ '&e a)'+o* +( *o' o'+va'e/ by /+()r++*a'+o*, a/e +* ba/ a+'&, or ee)'e/ a( a or o u*+(&e*' or /eo'+o* +'&ou' (u+)+e*' )au(e.
This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprises effectively.
The eployer bears the b%rden o showing that the transer is not %nreasonable, inconvenient or pre?%dicial to the eployee9 and does not involve a deotion in rank or a diin%tion o his salaries, privileges and other beneits. ho%ld the eployer ail to overcoe this b%rden o proo, the eployee0s transer shall be tantao%nt to constr%ctive disissal.
Constr%ctive disissal is deined as a 6%itting beca%se contin%ed eployent is rendered ipossible, %nreasonable or %nlikely9 when there is a deotion in rank or a diin%tion o pay. ikewise, constr%ctive disissal e7ists when an act o clear discriination, insensibility or disdain by an eployer becoes %nbearable to the eployee, leaving hi with no option b%t to orego his contin%ed eployent.
! transer is deined as a @oveent ro one position to another which is o e6%ivalent rank, level or salary, witho%t break in service.A +rootion, on the other hand, is the @advanceent ro one position to another with an increase in d%ties and responsibilities as a%thoriBed by law, and %s%ally accopanied by an increase in salary.A Conversely, deotion involves a sit%ation in which an eployee is relegated to a s%bordinate or less iportant position constit%ting a red%ction to a lower grade or rank, with a corresponding decrease in d%ties and responsibilities, and %s%ally accopanied by a decrease in salary.
In this case, while the transer o respondent ro Credit and Collection Manager to Marketing !ssistant did not res%lt in the red%ction o his salary, there was a red%ction in his d%ties and responsibilities which ao%nted to a deotion tantao%nt to a constr%ctive disissal as correctly held by the NRC and the C!.
There is constr%ctive disissal when an eployee1s %nctions, which were originally s%pervisory in nat%re, were red%ced9 and s%ch red%ction is not gro%nded on valid gro%nds s%ch as gen%ine b%siness necessity.
There is also constr%ctive disissal when an act o clear discriination, insensibility, or disdain by an eployer becoes so %nbearable on the part o the eployee as to oreclose any choice on his part e7cept to resign ro s%ch eployent.
Respondent0s deotion in the nat%re o his %nctions co%pled with petitioner !lbos0s act o insensibility no do%bt ao%nts to his constr%ctive disissal.
>hile petitioners have the prerogative to transer respondent to another position, s%ch transer sho%ld be done witho%t diin%tion o rank and beneits which has been shown to be present in respondent1s case. :e co%ld have been transerred to a ?ob o anagerial position and not to that o a Marketing !ssistant. Moreover, petitioners ailed to s%bstantiate their clai that respondent was weak in the inancial aspect o operation, b%t he was good in arketing, as the perorance eval%ation report relied %pon by petitioners wo%ld not s%ice.
The petition is D#NI#D.
