JONATHAN V.

MORALES, vs HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC, January 25,

2012, G.R. No. 174208

 “transfer of employees is a management prerogative”

 the right and responsibility to find the perfect balance between the skills and
abilities of employees to the needs of the business.
 abandoned his employment and was not constructively dismissed.
 exercise of its management prerogative to assign its employees to jobs for
which they are best suited;
 reassignment to Operations Cost Accounting was a valid exercise of HCPTI’s
prerogative to transfer its employees as the exigencies of the business may
require; (b) the transfer cannot be construed as constructive dismissal since it
entailed no demotion in rank, salaries and benefits; and, (c) rather than being
terminated, Morales refused his new assignment by taking a leave of absence
from 4 to 17 April 2003 and disregarding HCPTI’s warnings and directives to
report back for work.27
 Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work
because "continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in
rank or a diminution in pay" Globe Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, 438
(

Phil. 756, 766 (2002) citing Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation v. NLRC, et
and other benefits.
al., 253 Phil. 149, 152, (1989).)
 Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to
dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,( Uniwide Sales
Warehouse Club v. NLRC, G.R. No. 154503, 29 February 2008, 547 SCRA 220, 236.)3
 constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it
could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued
employment.( Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy, 412 Phil. 295, 306 (2001))
 In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that
the employer is charged with the burden of proving that its
conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as
genuine business necessity(Philippine Veterans Bank v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 188882, 30 March 2010, 617 SCRA 204, 212.) and
that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or
prejudicial to the employee.
 If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the
employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful
constructive dismissal(Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samaniego, 518
Phil. 41, 51 (2006).)
 Admittedly, 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. By management 42

prerogative is meant the right of an employer to regulate all

aspects of employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work
assignments, working methods, processes to be followed,
regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their
work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of
workers. Although jurisprudence recognizes said management
43

prerogative, it has been ruled that the exercise thereof, while

ordinarily not interfered with, is not absolute and is subject to
44

limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreement,

and general principles of fair play and justice. Thus, an 45

employer may 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. Indeed, having the right should not be
46

confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. 47

 As a just and valid ground for dismissal, at any rate,

abandonment requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the
employee to resume his employment, without any intention of
60

returning. Since an employee like Morales who takes steps to

61

protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have

abandoned his work, it is a settled doctrine that the filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with
abandonment of employment. 62
http://www.ebvlaw.com/2018/02/07/abandonment-work-not-automatically-negated-filing-
illegal-dismissal-complaint/

G.R. No. 228701-02

MEHITABEL, INC., Petitioner

vs.
JUFHEL L. ALCUIZAR, Respondent

 Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

 The burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies. A party alleging a
critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based
on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process. (Macasero v.
Southern Industrial Gases Philippines and/or Lindsay, 519 Phil. 494, 499 (2009).)
 And in illegal termination cases, jurisprudence had underscored that the fact of
dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the
intention to dismiss (Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phi ls., Inc., G.R. No.
207888, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 570.)
 before the burden is shifted to the employer that the dismissal was legal (Exodus
International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho, G.R. No. 166109, February 23, 2011,
644 SCRA 76.)
 In the extant case, the records are bereft of any evidence that would corroborate
respondent's claim that he was actually dismissed from employment. His asseveration
that Arcenas instructed him to turnover his functions to Enriquez remains to be a naked
claim. Apart from his bare self-serving allegation, nothing in the records even hints of
him being severed from employment by petitioner.

 Respondent abandoned his employment

 In contrast, petitioner herein issued a Return to Work order to respondent, which the
latter received through registered mail. This circumstance bears more weight and
effectively negates respondent’s self-serving asseveration that he was dismissed from
employment; it more than implies that the company still considered respondent as its
employee on August 10, 2011.
 Respondent's non-compliance with the directive in the Return to Work to Our mind,
signifies his intention to sever the employment relation with petitioner, and gives
credence to the latter’s claim that it was respondent who abandoned his job. Moreover,
such omission substantiates the testimonies of Canete and Molina who positively
attested to the fact of respondent's desertion. In Cañete’s affidavit, for instance, she
stated under oath the following circumstances:
 Respondent cannot harp on the fact that he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in proving
that he did not abandon his post, for the filing of the said complaint does not ipso
facto foreclose the possibility of abandonment.
 It is not the sole indicator in determining whether or not there was desertion, and to declare
as an absolute that the employee would not have filed a complaint for illegal dismissal if he
or she had not really been dismissed is non sequitur( Abadv. Roselle Cinema, G.R. No.
141371, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 262, 272.)
  It bears emphasizing that this case does not involve termination .of employment on the
ground of abandonment. As earlier discussed, there is no evidence showing that petitioners
1âwphi 1

were actually dismissed. Petitioners’ filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, irrespective of
whether reinstatement or separation pay was prayed for, could not by itself be the sole
consideration in determining whether they have been illegally dismissed. All circumstances
surrounding the alleged termination should also be taken into account. (Basay v. Hacienda
Consolacion, G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422.

January 11, 2016

G.R. No. 214092

ECHO 2000 COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, EDWARD N. ENRIQUEZ, LEONORA K.

BENEDICTO and ATTY. GINA WENCESLAO, Petitioners,
vs.
OBRERO FILIPINO-ECHO 2000 CHAPTER-CLO, ARLO C. CORTES and DAVE
SOMIDO, Respondents.

 The offer of transfer is, in legal contemplation, a promotion, which the respondents
validly refused. Such refusal cannot be the basis for the respondents' dismissal from
service. The finding of unfair labor practice and the award of moral and exemplary
damages do not however follow solely by reason of the dismissal.

G.R. No. 178125 March 18, 2013

THE ORCHARD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, Petitioner,

vs.
AMELIA R. FRANCISCO, Respondent