30. Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.

119205, 15 April 1998, 289 SCRA 86

Topic: What is the extent of managements prerogative to prescribe working methods, time, place,
manner and other aspects of work?

Facts:
Sime Darby is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tires, tubes and other rubber products.
Private respondent is an association of the monthly salaried employees of the Sime Darby factory
workers in Marikina. Prior to the controversy, all employees of Sime Darby worked from 7:45am to
3:45pm with a 30-minute paid "on call" lunch break.
On August 14, 1992, the company issued a memorandum to all factory employees advising all its
monthly salaried employees in Marikina Tire plant except those in the warehouse and Quality Assurance
Dept., of a change in work schedules. (M-F, 7:45am-4:45pm and Sat 7:45am-11:45am) with cofee break
of 10 minutes between 9:30am-10:30am and 2:30pm-3:30pm and lunch break between 12nn-1pm(M-
F).
Because of this memorandum, the association filed a complaint in behalf of its members a
complaint with labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice, discrimination and evasion of liability.
Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the elimination of the 30 minute paid
lunch break constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative. Sime Darby elevated it to the NLRC
which initially dismissed the case. However, upon motion for reconsideration the NLRC reversed its
earlier decision and favored the association of the employees.
Sime Darby filed the petition to the SC.

Issue:
WON the act of management in revising the work schedule of its employees and discarding their
paid lunch break is within the extent of management preroragtive

Held:
Yes. Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In the process, it may devise
means to attain that goal. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also
protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. Thus,
management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work,
processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work
supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Further, management
retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the working hours of
its employees. So long as such prerogative is 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 such exercise.
.
31. Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 122468, Sept. 3, 1998
Topic: What is the extent of managements prerogative to transfer or re-assign workers?
Transfer; concept and meaning.

Nature: Certiorari seeking the reversal of the two petitions to the NLRCFacts:
Facts:
Five employees of Sentinel Security Agency filed for illegal dismissal against the Agency and its
Client Philamlife Cebu and prayed for payment of salary differential, service incentive pay, and
separation pay. The complainants were assigned to Philamlife Cebu but after nearly 20 years for some
employees and more than 20 years for some, Philam requested on Dec 16,1993 that security guards be
replaced in the Clients offices in Cebu, Bacolod, CDO, Dipolog and Iligan.
Agency issued a Relief and Transfer Order replacing the guards and for them to be reassigned to
other clients effective on Jan 16 1994. On Jan 18 and Feb 4 1994,the employees filed an illegal dismissal
complaint because of a threat from the personnel manager who told them that they were replaced
because they were old.
Hence the complaint against the Agency and the Client.
Client and Agencys defense: No dismissal because the contract allows them to recall security
guards from assigned posts at the will of either party and that the Agency is allowed for a period of not
more than six months, to retain the complainants on floating status. Agency should have been given a
chance to give new assignments to complainants.
Clients defense: No ER-EE relationship. Job contract,separate corporate personalities and not
necessary anddesirable to the business or trade

Issue:
Whether or not the agency validly exercised the prerogative of management to transfer an employee
from one office to another

Held:
No. The Agency illegally dismissed the complainants.
In several cases, the Court has recognized the prerogative of management to transfer an
employee from one office to another within the same business establishment, as the exigency of the
business may require, provided that the said transfer does not result in a demotion in rank or a
diminution in salary, benefits and other privileges of the employee;[18] or is not unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial to the latter;[19] or is not used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself
of an undesirable worker.[20]
A transfer means a movement (1) from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or
salary, without a break in the service;[21] and (2) from one office to another within the same business
establishment.[22] It is distinguished from a promotion in the sense that it involves a lateral change as
opposed to a scalar ascent.[23]
However, this legally recognized concept of transfer was not implemented. The agency hired
new security guards to replace the complainants, resulting in a lack of posts to which the complainants
could have been reassigned. Thus, it refused to reassign Complainant Andoy when he reported for duty
on February 2, 4 and 7, 1994; and merely told the other complainants on various dates from January 25
to 27, 1994 that they were already too old to be posted anywhere.
32. Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G. R. No. 155421

Topic: Transfer of employees, inherent right of management.

Facts:
The Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Lucban, Inc., issued Board Resolutions stating, that
in line with the policy of the bank to familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank
operations and further strengthen the existing internal control system[,] all officers and employees are
subject to reshuffle of assignments. Moreover, this resolution does not preclude the transfer of
assignment of bank officers and employees from the branch office to the head office and vice-versa."
Mendoza was an appraiser for 6 years. As part of the reshuffling, he was assigned to the position
of clerk. He complained to the management that the reshuffling is deemed to be a demotion without
any legal basis.
Petitioner filed a Complaint before Arbitration Branch No. IV of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The Complaint -- for illegal dismissal, underpayment, separation pay and damages..

Issue:
Whether or not the Mendozas transfer to another position was a lawful exercise of
management prerogative to transfer employees

Held:
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. For this reason, courts
often decline to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.[24] Indeed, labor laws
discourage interference in employers judgments concerning the conduct of their business.[25] The law
must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.
In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or
assign employees from one office or area of operation to another -- provided there is no demotion in
rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not motivated by
discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient
cause.[26] This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise
effectively.[27] 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.
Petitioners transfer was made in pursuit of respondents policy to familiarize bank employees
with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing internal control
system[33] of all officers and employees. We have previously held that employees may be transferred
-- based on their qualifications, aptitudes and competencies -- to positions in which they can function
with maximum benefit to the company.[34] There appears no justification for denying an employer the
right to transfer employees to expand their competence and maximize their full potential for the
advancement of the establishment. Petitioner was not singled out; other employees were also
reassigned without their express consent.
Neither was there any demotion in the rank of petitioner; or any diminution of his salary,
privileges and other benefits.