MISAMIS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE (MORESCO II) v. VIRGILIO M. CAGALAWAN G.R. NO. 175170(Digested)

[G.R. NO. 175170 - September 5, 2012]MISAMIS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE (MORESCO II), Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO M. CAGALAWAN, Respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: 

On September 1, 1993, MORESCO II, a rural electric cooperative, hired Cagalawan as a Disconnection Lineman on a probationary basis. On March 1, 1994 Cagalawan was appointed to the same post this time on a permanent basis.Ï‚rνll On July 17, 2001, he was designated as Acting Head of the disconnection crew in Area III sub-office of MORESCO II in Balingasag, Misamis Oriental (Balingasag sub-office).νll In a MemorandumÏ‚rνll dated May 9, 2002, MORESCO II General Manager Amado B. Ke-e (Ke-e) transferred Cagalawan to Area I sub-office in Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental (Gingoog sub-office) as a member of the disconnection crew. Said memorandum stated that the transfer was done "in the exigency of the service."

In a letter dated May 15, 2002, Cagalawan assailed his transfer claiming he was effectively demoted from his position as head of the disconnection crew to a mere member thereof. He also averred that his transfer to the Gingoog sub-office is inconvenient and prejudicial to him as it would entail additional travel expenses to and from work. He likewise sought clarification on what kind of exigency exists as to justify his transfer and why he was the one chosen to be transferred.

In a Memorandum, Ke-e explained that Cagalawan s transfer was not a demotion since he was holding the position of Disconnection Head only by mere designation and not by appointment.

In reply, Cagalawan claimed that he was transferred because he executed an Affidavit in support of his co-employee Jessie Rances, who filed an illegal dismissal case against MORESCO II.

the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring that Cagalawan s transfer constituted illegal constructive dismissal. The NLRC set aside and vacated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed Cagalawan s complaint against MORESCO II. he CA found the NLRC to have gravely abused its discretion in admitting MORESCO II s evidence.


Issue: 

Was the respondent constructively dismissed by the petitioner?

Held:

Yes. The rule is that it is within the ambit of the employer s prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business, provided that the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges.Ï‚r This Court has always considered the management s prerogative to transfer its employees in pursuit of its legitimate interests. But this prerogative should be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and with due regard to the basic elements of justice and fair play, such that if there is a showing that the transfer was unnecessary or inconvenient and prejudicial to the employee, it cannot be upheld. 

Here, while we find that the transfer of Cagalawan neither entails any demotion in rank since he did not have tenurial security over the position of head of the disconnection crew, nor result to diminution in pay as this was not sufficiently proven by him, MORESCO II s evidence is nevertheless not enough to show that said transfer was required by the exigency of the electric cooperative s business interest. Simply stated, the evidence sought to be admitted by MORESCO II is not substantial to prove that there was a genuine business urgency that necessitated the transfer.