SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236935. April 16, 2018.]
LEAH T. RIOTOTAR, petitioner, vs.ONESIMUS CORPORATION AND DELILAH SANTOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236935 (Leah T. Riototar v. Onesimus Corporation and Delilah Santos)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the February 20, 2017 Decision 1 and January 12, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145135 for failure of petitioner Leah T. Riototar (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that she was constructively dismissed by respondents Onesimus Corporation and its Senior Human Resources and Administrative Manager, Delilah Santos (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's transfer and re-assignment to respondent Onesimus Corporation's different branches out of urgency and genuine business necessity is a valid exercise of management prerogative, absent a showing of bad faith or ill-motive in ordering said transfer. 3 Neither was it shown that petitioner was publicly berated and threatened by the management that led her to forego employment with respondents. It is settled that constructive dismissal exists when there is a clear act of discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer which becomes unbearable for the employee to continue his employment, 4 which did not exist in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 38-52. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
2.Id. at 57-58.
3. Having expressly consented to the foregoing, the respondents had no basis for objecting to their transfer. x x x the employee who has consented to the company's policy of hiring sales staff willing to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines as demanded by the employer's business has no reason to disobey the transfer order of management. Verily, the right of the employee to security of tenure does not give her a vested right to her position as to deprive management of its authority to transfer or re-assign her where she will be most useful. (See Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. v. Balba, G.R. No. 197492, January 18, 2017)
4.Barroga v. Data Center College of the Philippines, 667 Phil. 808, 818 (2011), citing Montederamos v. Tri-Union International Corporation, 614 Phil. 546, 552 (2009).