1. Cebu Royal Plant vs.

Deputy Minister of Labor

Facts:
- Private respondent Ramon Pilones was removed by the petitioner Cebu Royal
Plant and complained to the Minister of Labor.
- The Regional Director dismissed his complaint but it was reversed by the
public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor it held that Pilones was already
a permanent employee at the time of his dismissal and so was entitled to
security of tenure. The alleged ground for his removal (pulmonary
tubercolosis minimal) was not certified as incurable within 6 months to justify
his separation. Also, Pilones insists that Cebu Royal should have first obtained
a clearance, as required by the regulations then in force, for the termination
of his employment.
- The petitioner Cebu Royal Plant claimed that Pilones was still on probation
at the time of his dismissal and so had no security of tenure. His dismissal
was in conformity with company policy but also necessary for the protection
of public health, as he was handling ingredients in the processing of soft
drinks which were being sold to the public.
Issue:
Was the dismissal proper?
Held:
NO, the dismissal is not proper. An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
In the case, the Supreme Court is satisfied that whether the employment of
private respondent Pilones began on February 16, 1978 or even earlier, he was
already a regular employee when he was dismissed on August 21, 1978. As
such, he could validly claim the security of tenure guaranteed to him by the
Constitution and the Labor Code.

2. Sosito vs. Aguinaldo Development Corporation

Facts:
- Petitioner Manuel Sosito was employed in 1964 by private respondent
Aguinaldo Development Corporation, a logging company and was in charge of
logging importation. He went into on indefinite leave with consent of the
company on January 16, 1976.
- On July 20, 1976, the Corporation, through its president, announced a
retrenchment program and offered separation pay to employees in the active
service as of June 30, 1976 and would tender their resignation not later than
July 31, 1976.
- Petitioner Sosito decided to accept this offer and submitted his resignation on
July 29, 1976 to avail himself of the gratuity benefits promised. However, his
resignation was not acted upon and he was never given the separation pay
he expected.
- LA ordered the company to pay Sosito the sum of money representing his
salary for 6 and a half months.
- NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and held that petitioner Sosito was not
covered by the retrenchment program.
Issue:
Was the petitioner entitled to the said benefits?
Held:
NO, the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefits. While the Constitution
committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class,
it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided
in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled
to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.
In the case, the private respondent ADC could have validly reduced its work
force because of its financial reverses without the obligation to grant separation
pay which was permitted under the Labor Code. However, to its credit, the
company voluntarily offered gratuities to those who would agree to be phased
out pursuant to the terms and conditions of its retrenchment program, in
recognition of their loyalty and to tide them over their own financial difficulties.
The SC feels that such compassionate measure deserves commendation and
support but at the same time rules that it should be available only to those who
are qualified. However, the SC held that the petitioner Sosito is not one of them.

3. Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp. vs. NLRC

Facts:
- Private Respondent Olga Quinanola, who had been employed in petitioner
corporation (Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp.) since January 19, 1982, as
Assistant Secretary was promoted on May 20, 1983 to the position of
Executive Secretary to the Executive VP and GM.
--On May 31, 1986, for no apparent reason and without notice to her, she was
transferred to the Production Department as Production Secretary.
--Although the transfer did not amount to a demotion because her salary and
workload remained the same, she believes otherwise so she rejected the
assignment and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
- LA found that the transfer would amount to constructive dismissal, hence
her refusal to obey the transfer order was justified.
- NLRC approved the LAs decision.
Issue:
Did the transfer amount to constructive dismissal, rendering the transfer invalid?
Held:
NO, the transfer/assignment did not constitute constructive dismissal. A
constructive discharge is defined as: A quitting because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as, an offer involving a demotion in
rank and a diminution in pay.
In the case, the private respondents assignment as Production Secretary of the
Production Department was not unreasonable as it did not involve a demotion in
rank nor a change in her place of work, nor a diminution in pay, benefits, and
privileges. It did not constitute a constructive dismissal.
--Employees right to security of tenure does not give him a vested right in his
position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment
or transfer to him where he will be most useful.

4. Abbott Laboratories (Phils.) Inc. vs. NLRC

Facts:
- Complainant Bobadilla is an employee of respondent company and after
undergoing training, complainant was designated professional medical
representative (PMR) and was assigned to cover the sales territory. In
connection with the companys marketing and sales operations, it has been
its policy and established practice of undertaking employment movements
and/or reassignments from one territorial area to another as the exigencies of
its operations require and to hire only applicant salesmen, including
professional medical representatives (PMRs) who are willing to take provincial
assignments.
- On July 22, 1983, respondent Victa called complainant to his office and
informed Bobadilla that he was being transferred effective August 1, 1983 to
the newly opened Cagayan territory. However, the complainant, thru his
lawyer, objected to the transfer on the grounds that it was not only a
demotion but also personal and punitive in nature without basis legally and
factually.
- LA dismissed the said complaint and ruled for the respondent company on
the ground that the complainant is guilty of insubordination.
- NLRC reversed the LAs decision and held that petitioners had no valid and
justifiable reason to dismiss the complainant.
Issue:
Could private respondent Bobadilla validly be dismissed from his employment on
the ground of insubordination for refusing to accept his new assignment?
Held:
YES, the SC answered in the affirmative. The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and
promotion of employees has been traditionally identified as a management
prerogative subject to limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or
general principles of fair play and justice. This is a function associated with the
employers inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as
the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an
employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of
management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be
denied.
-- As a general rule, the right to transfer or reassign an employee is recognized as
an employers exclusive right and the prerogative of management.
-- In the case, Bobadilla had no valid reason to disobey the order of transfer. He had
tacitly given his consent thereto when he acceded to the petitioners policy of hiring
sales staff who are willing to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines which is
demanded by the petitioners business. By the very nature of his employment a
drug salesman or medical representative is expected to travel and should anticipate
reassignment. Reassignments are part of the employment contract of the employee.

5. Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. vs. Julve

Facts:
- Petitioner Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. hired respondent Arjay Julve as
management trainee and he was later on appointed as planning and
marketing officer. The president of the bank, William Hotchkiss issued

6.