Reyes v. AMA Group of Companies

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232347. November 15, 2021.]

CHARLOTTE D. REYES, petitioner, vs.AMA GROUP OF COMPANIES, AMA COMPUTER LEARNING CENTER, AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE AND AMABLE AGUILUZ IX, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 232347 (Charlotte D. Reyes v. AMA Group of Companies, AMA Computer Learning Center, AMA Computer College and Amable Aguiluz IX). — Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari1 is the February 28, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138143 denying petitioner Charlotte D. Reyes' (Reyes) claim that she was constructively dismissed by respondents AMA Group of Companies, AMA Computer Learning Center (ACLC), and AMA Computer College (ACC) (collectively, respondents) when she was transferred from her previous work assignment as Registration Assistant in AMA Computer Learning Center, Inc./AMA Computer College, San Pedro City, Laguna (ACLC/ACC-San Pedro) to AMA Computer Learning Center in Caloocan City (ACLC-Caloocan) as Library Clerk.

Also assailed in the instant petition is the CA's June 23, 2017 Resolution 3 denying Reyes' motion for reconsideration. 4

The Antecedents:

The instant case is already the third case involving the parties. 5

Reyes was a regular employee of ACLC/ACC-San Pedro under AMA Group of Companies, occupying the position of Registration Assistant since January 2000. 6

In November 2000, Reyes was retrenched. She filed a case for illegal dismissal and won in the case entitled Charlotte D. Reyes versus AMA Group of Companies, Amable Aguiluz and Maria Perla S. Quintana, docketed as NLRC-RAB Case No. 12-13233-00-L and later on docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114654 before the appellate court. She was reinstated pending appeal on September 24, 2003 until she was again dismissed or retrenched effective October 2004. 7

Reyes filed the second complaint 8 for illegal dismissal docketed as NLRC RAB-IV-06-20997-05-L which was raffled to the office of Labor Arbiter Robert A. Jerez (Labor Arbiter Jerez). On March 5, 2008, he rendered a Decision 9 which found Reyes as illegally dismissed and ordered her reinstatement, the dispositive portion of which reads: ACIEaH

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant Charlotte D. Reyes is DECLARED illegally dismissed. Accordingly, respondent AMA GROUP OF COMPANIES, AMA COMPUTER LEARNING CENTER, AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE and AMABLE AGUILUZ IX in his official capacity as manager are DIRECTED to reinstate complainant to her former position[,] jointly and severally to pay her full backwages und other benefits from the date of her dismissal up to the date of her actual reinstatement and to accord her continuous enjoyment of her seniority rights and privileges. 10

Respondents appealed 11 from the said Decision but it was dismissed for failure to post the surety bond. 12 Their subsequent motion for reconsideration 13 was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution 14 dated February 27, 2009. After an Entry of Judgment was issued, a motion for execution followed. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari15 before the CA which did not issue any temporary restraining order. The case, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 109041, entitled AMA Group of Companies, AMA Computer Learning Center, AMA Computer College, Amable Aguiluz IX versus Charlotte D. Reyes, was eventually dismissed by the appellate court for lack of merit. 16

Subsequently, Labor Arbiter Jerez issued a Writ of Execution dated June 7, 2011. Reyes then received a memorandum from Mr. Recardo L. Devio, Jr. (Mr. Devio), Head of respondents' Human Resource Department (HRD), advising the former to report for work to her former position as registrar of ACC. 17

Reyes reported for work on November 2, 2011 but she was not reinstated. She was told by Maria Izza J. Suarez of the respondents' Labor Relations Unit as well as the respondents' lawyer, Atty. Joselito Benedito, to wait for their call. 18 However, they gave a certification that Reyes reported for work on November 2, 2011 in compliance with her notice of reinstatement. 19

On November 8, 2011, Reyes, who was then in Bataan, was told through a text message by a certain Ms. Lee of the HRD, AMA Head Office, to report for work in Caloocan City. She reported but was not reinstated as registration assistant. She was told by Mr. Michael Salvador of respondents' HRD that the school did not have a vacancy for registrar and that the available vacancy was only for a library clerk, which he offered to her. Reyes was given a certification that she reported for work on November 10, 2011. 20

Reyes realized that she would not be placed to her former position and place of work at San Pedro, Laguna as registration assistant. On the other hand, she claimed that her assignment in Caloocan City as library clerk would consume her minimum wage salary by half because of transportation costs from her home in Biñan to Caloocan which is P214.00 per day back and forth. Thus, she found her new work as unreasonable. 21

ACLC, through Mr. Devio, issued a memorandum 22 dated November 15, 2011 requiring Reyes to explain her negligence/inefficiency, absenteeism and insubordination for not reporting for work on November 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15, 2011 despite notice and her refusal to accept her new assignment as library clerk in ACLC-Caloocan. Reyes received this memorandum on November 25, 2011. 23

On November 17, 2011, Reyes filed the instant complaint 24 for constructive dismissal, such that in her answer to respondents' November 15, 2011 Memorandum she said that "[y]ou are aware by now that the undersigned filed a case for illegal dismissal (constructive) on November 17, 2011 x x x. Your letter memorandum which was received on November 23, 2011 cannot be perceived as belated attempt to go around this illegal dismissal case filed against you." 25

ACLC then issued a November 29, 2011 memorandum which was a Notice of Decision meting upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service for her infractions as stated in said memorandum. 26

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter:

On November 22, 2013, Labor Arbiter Remedios Tirad-Capinig issued a Decision 27 dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. However, respondents AMA COMPUTER LEARNING CENTER and AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE are SOLIDARILY held liable to pay COMPLAINANT, as follows: cDCSET

1. UNPAID SALARIES

 Nov. 2-29, 2011 — P11,076.00

SO ORDERED. 28

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC):

Aggrieved by the Labor Arbiter's ruling, Reyes appealed with the NLRC. However, in its August 29, 2014 Decision, 29 the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's findings, the fallo of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.

The Assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. 30

Reyes moved for reconsideration which the NLRC denied for lack of merit. 31

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

Reyes then filed a petition for certiorari32 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA asserting that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not finding that she was constructively dismissed tantamount to illegal dismissal. 33

In its February 28, 2017 Decision, the appellate court affirmed the NLRC's findings. The court noted that Reyes wanted herself to be reinstated to her former position in AMA Telecommunications and Electronic Learning Center of San Pedro where she was originally employed but which no longer exists because in 2004 it suffered business losses and is now non-existing. 34 Moreover, the CA held that an employer has the prerogative to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, 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. 35 In view of the foregoing, the appellate court found that there was no constructive dismissal since Reyes' transfer to Caloocan City was not unreasonable, inconvenient and prejudicial to her. 36 The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we therefore DENY the petition for lack of merit.

The assailed decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.37

Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied in its June 23, 2017 Resolution. 38

Displeased, Reyes filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not Reyes was constructively dismissed as to amount to an illegal dismissal when her work assignment was transferred from San Pedro City to Caloocan City.

Our Ruling

The instant petition is devoid of merit. Respondents are not guilty of constructive dismissal.

The employer bears the burden to prove that the employee's transfer is reasonable, does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fails to overcome said burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to a constructive dismissal. 39 In Pascual v. Sitel Philippines Corp., 40 We explained that: IAcDET

Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. It exists 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. There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances. 41

Thus, in constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action were for valid and legitimate grounds. 42

In the instant case, Reyes argues that her transfer from her previous location and position in ACLC/ACC-San Pedro as registration assistant to ACLC-Caloocan as library clerk constitutes constructive dismissal due to the burdensome transportation fee and travel that she would incur taking into consideration that she lives in Barangay Platero, Biñan City, Laguna. 43

We disagree.

Firstly, this Court notes that Reyes wants herself to be reinstated to her former position in AMA Telecommunications and Electronic Learning Center of San Pedro where she was originally employed but which no longer exists because in 2004 it suffered business losses and is now non-existing. 44 The business losses caused a change of management status from company-owned to franchise-operated ACLC-San Pedro. 45

Reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated. The person reinstated assumes the position he/she had occupied prior to his/her dismissal. 46 However, settled is the rule that reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially equivalent or of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the employee. 47 In the instant case, reinstatement of Reyes to her previous position as registration assistant in AMA Telecommunications and Electronic Learning Center of San Pedro, Laguna was rendered legally impossible due to the latter's business closure. Thus, We find that Reyes' transfer of work assignment to an equivalent position in ACLC-Caloocan as Library Clerk 48 is deemed sufficient compliance with the reinstatement order. Certainly, the law and this Court cannot mandate exact compliance with what is impossible, such as reinstatement to the employee's former position of the employer's business or branch that is already non-existent.

Secondly, transfer of work assignment is generally within the management's prerogative, provided it is exercised in pursuit of legitimate business interest. In Bognot v. Pinic International (Trading) Corp., 49 We underscored that the "right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their position to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them." 50 We have repeatedly held that an 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. 51

Reyes' arguments that respondents' act of transferring her work assignment from San Pedro, Laguna to Caloocan City was tainted with clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain, is not convincing. This Court has previously held that "objection to the transfer being grounded on solely upon the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to disobey an order of transfer." 52 TSHEIc

All told, We cannot fully subscribe to Reyes' contention that her transfer was tantamount to constructive dismissal. We likewise note that Reyes only reported once to ACLC-Caloocan. 53 As accurately pointed out by the appellate court, her overt act of not reporting and not giving an explanation for her absences on November 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, her filing a complaint for constructive dismissal against respondents clearly showed her intention to abandon her employment or lack of interest to continue working at ACLC-Caloocan in view of the distance from her residence and the transportation cost that it entailed. 54 Thus, her failure to report for work was her personal decision, for which respondents should not be held liable.

Lastly, well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of administrative bodies, such as the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authority. Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, none of which obtains in this case. 55 In the instant case, We note that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA had made identical and sound dispositions on the same issues raised by Reyes before them. Thus, where management prerogative to transfer employees is validly exercised, as in this case, courts will decline to interfere.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition is DENIED. The assailed February 28, 2017 Decision and June 23, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138143 are hereby AFFIRMED.

The memorandum for petitioner dated October 2020 in compliance with the Resolution dated September 2, 2020 is NOTED.

The motion to admit attached respondents' memorandum dated November 30, 2020 of counsel for respondents is GRANTED and aforesaid memorandum for respondents of even date in compliance with the Resolution dated September 2, 2020 is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 13-41.

2.Id. at 43-56. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court).

3.Id. at 58-59.

4.Id. at 58.

5.Id. at 44.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Rollo, p. 44.

9.Id. at 22.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 45.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 23.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 45.

16.Id. at 45.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 52.

19.Id. at 45.

20.Id.

21.Id. at 46.

22.Rollo, p. 46.

23.Id.

24.Rollo, p. 46.

25.Id.

26.Id.

27. CA rollo, pp. 48-56. The assailed November 22, 2013 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-11-01861-11-L.

28.Rollo, p. 47; See also CA rollo, p. 56.

29. CA rollo, pp. 30-46. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo and concurred in by Commissioners Angelo Ang Palana and Numeriano D. Villena; The NLRC's August 24, 2014 Decision is docketed as NLRC LAC Case No. 03-000739-14/NLRC RAB-IV Case No. 11-01861-11-L.

30.Rollo, p. 47; See also CA rollo, p. 45.

31.Id.

32. CA rollo, pp. 3-26.

33.Rollo, p. 47.

34.Id. at 50-51; See also CA rollo, p. 34.

35.Id. at 49.

36.Id. at 53.

37.Id. at 56.

38.Id. at 58.

39.Telus International Philippines, Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 202676, December 4, 2019.

40. G.R. No. 240484, March 9, 2020.

41.Id.

42.Italkarat 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020.

43.Rollo, p. 48.

44.Id. at 50-51.

45. CA rollo, p. 34.

46.Pfizer, Inc. v. Velasco, 660 Phil. 434, 447 (2011).

47.Genuino Agro-Industrial Development Corp. v. Romano, G.R. No. 204732, September 18, 2019.

48.Rollo, p. 51.

49. G.R. No. 212471, March 11, 2019.

50.Id.

51.Automatic Applicants, Inc. v. Deguidoy, G.R. No. 228088, December 4, 2019.

52.Best Wear Garments v. de Lemos, 700 Phil. 471, 480 (2012).

53.Rollo, p. 53.

54.Id. at 54.

55.Torreta v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 242925, November 10, 2020.