II. Labor Standards> a.

Hours of not paid according to the

Work> i. Coverage number of hours worked.
LA granted respondents claims.
Best Wear Garments v. Adelaida
De Lemos and Cecille Ocubillo NLRC reversed (no basis for
December 05, 2012 Villarama, Jr., charge of constructive
J dismissal, respondents were
directed to report back to work
FACTS: without backwages). MR denied.
CA reversed NLRC, and
Petitioner Best Wear Garments reinstated LAs decision with
(BWG) hired respondents modification. Motion for Partial
Ocubillo and De Lemos as Recon denied, hence this
sewers on piece-rate basis petition.
De Lemos and Ocubillo filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, ISSUE: W/N respondents were
alleging that BWGs GM constructively dismissed. No.
(Sitosta) arbitrarily transferred
RATIO: The right of EEs to security of
them to other areas of
tenure does not give them vested
operation, which they said
rights to their positions to the extent
amounted to constructive
of depriving management of its
dismissal as it resulted in less
prerogative to change their
earnings for them. They also
assignments or to transfer them. Thus
claimed that the reason for their
an ER may transfer or assign EEs from
transfer is their refusal to
one office to another, provided there is
render OT work.
no demotion in rank or diminution of
Petitioners denied having
salary and other privileges, and the
terminated the employment of action is not motivated by
respondents who supposedly discrimination, made in BF or effected
committed numerous AWOL. as a form of punishment or demotion
BWG further claimed that without sufficient cause.
respondents intimated their
intention to resign and Being piece rate workers assigned to
demanded separation pay. It individual sewing machines,
was explained to the respondents earnings depended on
respondents that the company the quality and quantity of finished
had no existing policy on products. That their work output might
granting separation pay, and have been affected by the change in
hence could not act on their their specific work assignments does
request. Subsequently, the not necessarily imply that any
respondents failed to report for resulting reduction in pay is
work. tantamount to constructive dismissal.
As to the allegation of Workers under piece-rate employment
respondents that the reason for have no fixed salaries and their
their transfer was their refusal compensation is computed on the
to render OT work, petitioners basis of accomplished tasks. As
asserted that respondents are admitted by respondent De Lemos,
piece-rate workers and hence some garments or by-products took a
longer time to finish so they could not sewers to work on different types of
earn as much as before. Also, the type garments as dictated by present
of sewing jobs available would depend business necessity is within the ambit
on the specifications made by the of management prerogative, which, in
clients of petitioner company. Under the absence of BF, ill motive or
these circumstances, it cannot be said discrimination, should not be
that the transfer was unreasonable, interfered with by the courts.
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the
Petition granted, NLRC decision
respondents. Such deployment of
reinstated