2.

1 Management prerogatives (hiring of personnel and size of workforce)

WILTSHIRE FIRE CO. VS NLRC AND VICENTE ONG
FACTS:
Private respondent Vicente T. Ong was the Sales Manager of
Wiltshire File Co., Inc. for 4 years. Upon private respondent's return from a business
and pleasure trip abroad, he was informed by the President of Wiltshire that his
services were being terminated. Private respondent maintains that he tried to get
an explanation from management of his dismissal but to no avail. When Vicente
again tried to speak with the President of Wiltshire, the company's security guard
handed him a letter which formally informed him that his services were being
terminated upon the ground of redundancy. Vicente filed before the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal alleging that his position could not possibly be redundant because
nobody in the company was then performing the same duties. Private respondent
further contended that retrenching him could not prevent further losses because
it was in fact through his remarkable performance as Sales Manager that the
Company had an unprecedented increase in domestic market share the preceding
year. Labor Arbiter held that there was illegal dismissal. NLRC affirmed. Hence this
petition for certiorari. Wiltshire contends that the company had experienced an
unusually low volume of orders: and that it was in fact forced to rotate its
employees in order to save the company. Despite the rotation of employees,
petitioner alleged; it continued to experience financial losses and private
respondent's position became redundant.
ISSUE:

W/N companys contention that there is redundancy can be sustained.

HELD:
YES. That no other person was holding the same position that private
respondent held prior to the termination of his services, does not show that his
position had not become redundant. Indeed, in any well-organized business
enterprise, it would be surprising to find duplication of work and two (2) or more
people doing the work of one person. We believe that redundancy, for purposes of
our Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is
reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Succinctly put,
a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or
positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers,
decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service
activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. The employer has
no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessarily for
the operation of its business.

2.2 management prerogative: Prohibition against Elective Office

YMBONG VS ABS-CBN
FACTS: Ernesto G. Ymbong started working for ABS-CBN at its regional station in
Cebu as a television talent, co-anchoring Hoy Gising and TVPatrol Cebu. His stint in
ABS-CBN later extended to radio when ABS-CBN Cebu launched its AM station.
ABSCBN issued a policy stating that any employee who wants to run for public office
position, must file his or her resignation letter. Ymbong approached the station

manager and told him that he would leave radio for a couple of months because he
will campaign for the administration ticket. It was only after the elections that they
found out that Ymbong actually ran for public office himself at the eleventh
hour. Ymbong, on the other hand, claims that in accordance with the Memorandum,
he informed through a letter that he would take a few months leave of absence
because he was running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City. Unfortunately, he lost the
elections. ABS-CBN, however, agreed out of pure liberality to give him a chance to
windup his participation in the radio drama since it was rating well and to avoid an
abrupt ending. Later, his services was terminated. He filed a case for illegal
dismissal but the courts found that he was deemed resigned and not illegally
dismissed. Thus, this appeal.
ISSUE:W/N Ymbong by seeking an elective post, is deemed to have resigned and not
dismissed by ABS-CBN
HELD: YES. So long as a companys management prerogatives are exercised in
good faith for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose
of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or
under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them. ABS-CBN validly justified the
implementation of the Policy. It is well within its rights to ensure that it maintains its
objectivity and credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of impartiality.
Ymbongs overt act of running for councilor is tantamount to resignation on his part.
He was separated from ABS-CBN not because he was dismissed but because he
resigned. Since there was no termination to speak of, the requirement of due
process in dismissal cases cannot be applied to Ymbong. Thus, ABS-CBN is not dutybound to ask him to explain why he did not tender his resignation before he ran for
public office as mandated by the subject company policy.

2.3 management prerogative: Search of office computer to check misconduct

BRICCIO RICKY POLLO VS. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID
FACTS: CSC Chairperson Karina David received a document from an anonymous
source, making her aware that there is a corrupt official in the Commission. She
then formed personnel with IT background and directed them to back up all the files
of the computers found therein. David found, in Bricio Pollos diskettes, legal
pleading or documents that are related to administrative cases and were for on the
behalf of parties who were facing charges. David inferred that he was willfully aiding
their adverse interests and it was a practice that he pursued regularly. Pollo argued
that he was not even a lawyer to pursue such acts. He also asserted that the CSC
conducted a fishing expedition and his right to privacy was violated and that the
source of the complaint was anonymous. The CSC charged Pollo in violation of RA
6713. After some motions filed to the CSC, he filed his motion to the CA wherein he
was ordered to be dismissed of his governmental duties. The CA ruled that the
search was legal because in their capacity as employers, the government agencies
could validly conduct search and seizure in the governmental workplace without
meeting the probable cause or warrant requirement for search and seizure.

ISSUE: W/N there was illegal search.

RULING: NO. A search by a government employer of an employees office is justified
at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up
evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. Under the facts
obtaining, the search conducted on petitioners computer was justified at its
inception and scope. Moreover, he had no actual expectation of privacy on his work
computer. He did not have a separate office space nor did he use a password for his
computer. He would have visitors which he let them use his computer. The CSC also
implemented a policy that its employees on notice that they have no expectation of
privacy in anything on their office computers, and that the CSC may monitor their
use. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the
computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes.

2.4 management prerogative: transfer of employees

NORKIS TRADING VS. MELVIN GNILO
FACTS:
Gnilo was the Credit and Collection Manager of Norkis Trading and is in
charge of the Albay and Catanduanes branchesof the company. In 2000, Gnilo was
found to be submitting overstated reports about his area of management which
misled the management into believing that Gnilo was doing a good job. He was
subsequently transferred from his position to being the marketing assistant of the
companys senior VP Albos. Gnilo took the position under protest. He sued Norkis for
illegal dismissal until the case reached the NLRC. The NLRC ruled that the transfer is
actually a constructive dismissal. Norkis assailed the decision of the NLRC alleging
that Gnilos previous and current position in the company is of equal rank.
ISSUE:

W/N Gnilos transfer of position constitutes constructive dismissal.

HELD:
YES. While the transfer of respondent from Credit and Collection
Manager to Marketing Assistant did not result in the reduction of his salary, there
was a reduction in his duties and responsibilities which amounted to a demotion
tantamount to a constructive dismissal as correctly held by the NLRC. As Credit
and Collection Manager, Gnilo was clothed with all the duties and responsibilities of
a managerial employee. On the other hand, the work of a Marketing Assistant is
clerical in nature, which does not involve the exercise of any discretion. Such job
entails mere data gathering on vital marketing information relevant to Gnilos
motorcycles and making reports to his direct supervisor. He became a mere staff
member in the office of the Senior Vice-President for Marketing.

PHARMACIA AND UPJOHN, INC. VS. ALBAYDA

FACTS:
Albayda is a District Sales Manager of Pharmacia assigned in District XI
in the Western Visayas. Pursuant to a district territorial configuration for the new

marketing and sales direction for the year 2000, Respondent was informed in a
memorandum that he will be reassigned as a District Sales Manager to District XII in
the northern Mindanao, which respondent adamantly refused for reasons of
personal inconvenience and dislocation from his family. He refused the Sales and
Business Manager and the Human Resource Managers persuasions that he will be
entitled to relocation benefits and allowance. Subsequently, the company sent him
a memo directing him to report for work within 5 days from receipt, otherwise, he
will be terminated on the basis of being absent without official leave (AWOL) and
days later, the company sent him a memo notifying him of their decision to
terminate his services on the ground of being AWOL and insubordination after he
had repeatedly refused to report for work despite due notice, hence this complaint
for constructive dismissal.
ISSUE:
W/N the transfer of respondent from Western Visayas to Cagayan de
Oro City was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
HELD:
YES. The transfer in this case was a valid exercise of a legitimate
management prerogative to maximize business opportunities, growth and
development of personnel and the expertise of business in CDO. There was no
demotion as he will also be holding the same position and the transfer did not
indicate that his emoluments will be reduced. He was even informed that he will be
entitled to Relocation benefits and allowance. Furthermore, in his employment
contract, he agreed that he was willing to be assigned to any work or workplace
during the period of his employment as may be determined by the company
whenever the operations require such assignment. There was no evidence showing
that the restructuring of the company was done with ill motives or with malice and
bad faith purposely to constructively terminate respondent.

PRINCE TRANSPORT, INC. VS. DIOSDADO GARCIA ET. AL.

FACTS: Respondents are employees of PTI, engaged in the business of transporting
passengers by land. Garcia was the Operations Managers and others were drivers,
conductors, mechanics and inspectors. the commissions they received have been
reduced. The president, fearing that a labor union was to be formed, caused the
transfer of these employees to Lubas Transport, a sub-company of PTI. Despite such
transfer, the schedule of drivers and conductors, as well as their company
identification cards, were issued by PTI; the daily time records, tickets and reports
of the respondents were also filed at the PTI office; and, all claims for salaries were
transacted at the same office; later, the business of Lubas deteriorated because of
the refusal of PTI to maintain and repair the units being used therein, which resulted
in the virtual stoppage of its operations and respondents' loss of employment.
Respondents filed a case against PTI for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
LA ruled that Lubas was an independent company and PTI was not liable. NLRC
sustained said ruling. CA however reversed and ruled in favor of respondent
employees.

ISSUE: W/N the transfer of employees constitutes unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal.
HELD: YES. Respondents transfer of work assignments to Lubas was designed by
PTI as a subterfuge to foil the formers right to organize themselves into a union.
Under Article 248 (a) and (e) of the Labor Code, an employer is guilty of unfair labor
practice if it interferes with, restrains or coerces its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization or if it discriminates in regard to wages, hours of work
and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization. Indeed, evidence unfair labor practice is
shown by the established fact that, after respondents' transfer to Lubas, PTI left
them high and dry insofar as the operations of Lubas was concerned. It withheld
the necessary financial and logistic support such as spare parts, and repair and
maintenance of the transferred buses until only two units remained in running
condition. This left respondents virtually jobless.

May employees refuse transfer by raising said transfer as a grievance?

MANILA PAVILLON HOTEL VS. HENRY DELADA
FACTS:
Henry Delada was the Union president in MPH. He was the Head Waiter
of Rotiserrie, a fine-dining restaurant operated by MPH. he was reassigned as Head
Waiter of Seasons Coffee Shop, another restaurant operated by MPH. He declined
his reassignment and instead asked for a grievance meeting on the matter pursuant
to the CBA. He continued working as a head waiter of Rotiserrie. The parties failed
to reach a settlement so the case was elevated to the Panel of Voluntary
Administrators. The PVA ruled that his transfer from Rotisserie to Seasons Coffee
Shop did not prejudice or inconvenience him. Neither did it result in diminution of
salaries or demotion in rank. The PVA thus pronounced that Delada had no valid and
justifiable reason to refuse or even to delay compliance with the managements
directive.
ISSUE:
grievance?

W/N an employee may refuse transfer by raising said transfer as a

HELD:
NO. The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful
disobedience of a lawful order of an employer. Employees may object to, negotiate
and seek redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as unjust or
illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or
improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their
peril. It is important to note what the PVA said on Deladas defiance of the transfer
order: In fact, Delada cannot hide under the legal cloak of the grievance machinery
of the CBA or the voluntary arbitration proceedings to disobey a valid order of
transfer from the management of the hotel. While it is true that Deladas transfer to
Seasons is the subject of the grievance machinery in accordance with the provisions

of their CBA, Delada is expected to comply first with the said lawful directive while
awaiting the results of the decision in the grievance proceedings.