Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BLUE DAIRY CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 191281 2012-12-05	BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC,[17] we held that: x x x. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.[18]
	GR No. 182397 2011-09-14	ALERT SECURITY v. SAIDALI PASAWILAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We acknowledge and recognize the right of an employer to transfer employees in the interest of the service. This exercise is a management prerogative which is a lawful right of an employer. However, like all rights, there are limitations to the right to transfer employees. As ruled in the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC:[25]
	GR No. 159730 2008-02-11	NORKIS TRADING CO. v. MELVIN GNILO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The employer bears the burden of showing that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; and does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits.[18] Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal.[19]
	GR No. 171764 2007-06-08	ALBERT O. TINIO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The doctrine is well-settled that it is the employer's prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees' qualifications, aptitudes and competence, to move them around in the various areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the company.[17] This is a privilege inherent in the employer's right to control and manage his enterprise effectively. The freedom of management to conduct its business operations to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.[18]
	GR NO. 172062 2006-10-30	LORENZO MA. D.G. AGUILAR v. BURGER MACHINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the instant case, Burger Machine failed to discharge this burden. The labor tribunals below correctly found that the combination of the harsh actions of respondents rendered the employment condition of petitioner hostile and unbearable for the following reasons: First, in the March 7, 2002 Memorandum of De Jesus, no reason was stated why petitioner was directed to turn over BMNC to Centino. While the due process required by law is applied to dismissal cases, the same is also applicable to the instant controversy because it affects the status and right of petitioner to security of tenure.[19] Note that the same Memorandum did not inform petitioner of his next assignment thereby placing him in a floating status. Burger Machine belatedly claimed in its position paper that petitioner was relieved of his position because of gross inefficiency. If this is the case, the action of respondents was thus punitive in nature. With more reason therefore that the ground for the turn over should be stated in the Memorandum to apprise him of the cause of such punitive action. This omission of the company is a trespass not only of petitioner's due process rights but also of the basic respect and professional courtesy due him as an employee.
	GR NO. 171392 2006-10-30	RUPERTO SULDAO v. CIMECH SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Had there been truth to respondents' claim that complainant abandoned his work because he did not want the job in the fabrication department, complainant would not have made a letter of conformity to do the bidding of the company. Moreover, complainant would not have taken steps to protect his rights like the institution of the present labor suit if he had abandoned his work because rather than spend time, effort and a little money in attending to the hearings of this case, he would have concentrated in his new job or in finding one in order to feed his family.[14] While the decision to transfer employees to other areas of its operations forms part of the well recognized prerogatives of management, it must be stressed, however, that the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must not be exercised with grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker.[15]
	GR NO. 168159 2005-08-19	NORKIS TRADING CO. v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The management's right to transfer or re-assign its personnel, however, is not absolute as it is subject to limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[15] The employer must, therefore, muster the test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees as enunciated in the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[16] to wit:. . . The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.[17]
	GR No. 156963 2004-11-11	PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a long line of decisions,[24] we have held that the right and privilege of the employer to exercise the so-called management prerogative is recognized, and the courts will not interfere with it. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[25] In the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC,[26] we explained the test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees, as follows:But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.