PRISCO PRISCO LANZA LANZADER DERAS, AS, SAMUE SAMUEL L SADICO SADICON, N, ANGE ANGELO LO MABANT MABANTA A, VICEN VICENTE TE GIB GIBERSON RSON,, LONGI NGINO NAMB AMBATAC, ELE LENO NO ACERON, RON, and and SALV ALVADOR VIRTUDAZO, VIRTUDAZO, petitioners, vs AMET!"ST AMET!"ST SECURIT" AND GENERAL SERVICES, SERVICES, INC Eta#, respondents respondents GR No $%&'(%
Petitioners were the complainants of consolidated cases for alleged illegal dismissal with money claims against sister companies Resin Industrial Chemical Corp., (RICC) and Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, Inc., (PICMW) and their security serices proider, !methyst "ecurity and #eneral "erices Inc. (formerly (formerly Calmar "ecurity "ecurity !gency). !gency). $he %! ruled in faor of complainant complainantss (herein (herein petitioners) petitioners).. Respondents Respondents herein filed their appeal with the &%RC. !nd the &%RC reersed and set aside the ruling of the %!. RICC and PICMW entered into separate serice contracts for detailing of security guards with respondent !methyst "ecurity. When RICC'PICMW renewed their serice contract with !methyst , respondent RICC remi reminde nded d !met !methy hyst st of thei theirr stip stipul ulat ated ed age limi limitt ( ( to * y.o) .o) for for the the latt latter erss guar guards ds deta detail iled ed at the the RICC RICC'P 'PIC ICMW MW comp compou ound nd.. Peti Petiti tion oner erss who who were were at that that time time oer oer * year yearss of age age rece recei ied ed Reli Relief ef +rdersr +rdersreli eliei eing ng them them from from their their eisti eisting ng posting postingss as securi security ty guards guards of !methy !methyst st with with RICC'P RICC'PICM ICMW W. Petitioners were instructed to report to the main office of !methyst for reassignment. $he order further stated that the failure of petitioners to comply with the directie would -e construed as a manifestation of their lack of interest interest to continue continue working working as security security personnel and !methyst !methyst would consider them a-sent without official official leae (!W+%). !methyst issued a etail +rder informing petitioners that it had -een a-le to renegotiate their assignments with RICC'PICMW. It gae petitioners the option to either continue working for PICMW as firewatchers or -e transferred to Cagayan de +ro for new assignments. $he respondents alleged that the petitioners chose neither option option -ut instea instead d failed failed to report report for work. work. $herea $hereafte fter, r, petiti petitioner onerss filed filed separa separate te compla complaint intss for illeg illegal al dismissal. $he %! ruled that the petitioners had -een constructiely dismissed from their employment. /e stated that the change of assignments from security guards to firewatch guards was tantamount to a demotion, as the latter posting was of a lower category with corresponding diminution in pay. /e also opined that although no employer0employee relationship eisted -etween petitioners and respondents RICC'PICMW, the latter were conside considered red indire indirect ct employ employers ers of petiti petitioner oners, s, and thus, thus, solida solidaril rily y lia-le lia-le with with respond respondent ent securi security ty agency agency pursuant to !rticle 123of the %a-or Code. $he &%RC reersed and set aside the decision of the %a-or !r-iter on the ground that the relief of the petitioners from their posts was a legitimate eercise of -usiness prerogatie -y RICC'PICMW. !ccording !ccording to the &%RC, such eercise cannot -e challenged challenged for -eing malicious, malicious, capricious, capricious, or illegal. illegal. Petitioners Petitioners eleated the matter to the C! -ut said court dismissed their petition. /ence, the appeal to the "C.
Iss)e* Iss)e* Whether petitioners were constructiely dismissed, thus, entitling them to their claims and other monetary -enefits.
!dmittedly, the security serices contract -etween !methyst (formerly Calmar) "ecurity !gency and !e#d* !dmittedly, RICC'PICMW had continuously -een renewed since 1456 and featured the particular proision on the age limit (not eceeding * years) of the security guards with each renewal.7819 renewal.7819Petitioners Petitioners could not claim ignorance of the said proision. $hey could not claim to -e hae -een caught -y surprise when !methyst relieed them from their posting at RICC'PICMW due to their failure to meet the stipulated age limits. Petitioners acted in -ad faith when they tried to mislead !methyst as to their respectie actual age.
%astly, petitioners claims of constructie dismissal could not -e sustained. $heir aerments fall short of what this Court considers as constructie dismissal. Petitioners could not fairly claim inoluntary resignation on the ground that their continued employment was rendered impossi-le, unreasona-le or unlikely.789 &either could they show persuasiely that their transfer or assignment from security guards to firewatch guards inoled diminution in pay or demotion in rank. &or was there a clear showing of an act of clear discrimination, insensi-ility or disdain -y their employer 0 !methyst 0 that made their employment so un-eara-le that it could foreclose any option -y them ecept to forego their continued employment. $he condition imposed -y respondent RICC'PICMW, as a principal or client of the contractor !methyst, regarding the age re:uirement of the security guards to -e designated in its compound, is a alid contractual stipulation. It is an inherent right of RICC'PICMW, as the principal or client, to specify the :ualifications of the guards who shall render serice pursuant to a serice contract. It stands to reason that in a serice contract, the client may re:uire from the serice contractor that the personnel assigned to the client should meet certain standards and possess certain :ualifications, conforma-ly to the clients needs. "ecurity of tenure, although proided in the Constitution,does not gie an employee an a-solute ested right in a position as would deprie the company of its prerogatie to change their assignment or transfer them where they will -e most useful. When a transfer is not unreasona-le, nor inconenient, nor pre;udicial to an employee< and it does not inole a demotion in rank or diminution of his pay, -enefits, and other priileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructie dismissal. Case law recogni=es the employers right to transfer or assign employees from one area of operation to another ,7859 or one office to another or in pursuit of its legitimate -usiness interest, proided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, -enefits and other priileges and not motiated -y discrimination or made in -ad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. $his matter is a prerogatie inherent in the employers right to effectiely control and manage the enterprise. We note that !methyst gae petitioners an option as to their new deployment. $hey could stay on with RICC'PICMW as firewatch guards, pursuant to negotiated agreement -etween !methyst and RICC'PICMW to accommodate the displaced security guards. +r they could -e transferred to another locality, Cagayan de +ro City, -ut in the same role as security guards. Petitioners, howeer, refused to report to !methyst head:uarters, despite knowledge that they were -eing called to receie instructions regarding new deployment. Petitioners action not to report for work is a form of defiant action that petitioners failed to ;ustify. >en if it could -e argued that their collectie action stemmed from their resentment against the age rule -eing enforced -y !methyst, we find nothing in the circumstances of this case to show sufficient reason to ecuse petitioners failure to heed managements eercise of a management prerogatie. $hus, we agree with respondents that there is no reason to hold !methyst lia-le for iolations claimed -y petitioners. It follows also that we find no ground to hold co0respondents RICC'PICMW lia-le, ecept for salary differential ordered in the &%RC decision. $he only time the indirect employer may -e made solidarily lia-le with the contractor is when the contractor fails to pay his employees their wages and other -enefits claimed.