Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=30532:g-r-no-75656-may-28,-1990-yuco-chemical-industries,-inc-v-ministry-of-labor-and-employment,-et-al&amp;catid=1263&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:59:02+00:00

Document:
YUCO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT thru HONORABLE VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., DEPUTY MINISTER, GEORGE HALILI and AMADO MAGNO, Respondents.
Ricardo C. Atienza for Petitioner.
Bienvenido B. Balot for Private Respondents.
1.	LABOR LAW; TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES WORKPLACE; WITHIN MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE. — In a number of cases, the Court has recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment provided that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges. This is a privilege inherent in the employer’s right to control and manage its enterprise effectively. Even as the law is solicitous of the employees’ welfare, it cannot ignore the right of the employer to exercise what are clearly and obviously management prerogatives. The freedom of management to conduct its business operations to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.
2.	ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION. — The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right must be exercised. Thus it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. Nor when the real reason is to penalize an employee for his union activities and thereby defeat his right to self-organization. But the transfer can be upheld when there is no showing that it is unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced employee.
3.	ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — The reassignment of Halili and Magno to Manila is legally indefensible on several grounds. Firstly, it was grossly inconvenient to private respondents. They are working students. When they received the transfer memorandum directing their relocation to Manila within seven days from notice, classes had already started. The move from Tarlac to Manila at such time would mean a disruption of their studies. Secondly, there appears to be no genuine business urgency that necessitated their transfer. As well pointed out by private respondents’ counsel, the fabrication of aluminum handles for ice boxes does not require special dexterity. Many workers could be contracted right in Manila to perform that particular line of work. Altogether, there is a strong basis for public respondent’s conclusion that the controversial transfer was not prompted by legitimate reasons. Petitioner company had indeed discriminated against Magno and Halili when the duo was selected for reassignment to Manila. The transfer was timed at the height of union concerted activities in the firm, deliberately calculated to demoralize the other union members. Under such questionable circumstances, private respondents had a valid reason to refuse the Manila reassignment.
As a countermove, on August 21, 1981, petitioner filed an application for clearance to terminate the two employees on the ground of abandonment. On September 25, 1981, the OIC of the Tarlac labor office issued an order directing petitioner to give private respondents their separation pay within ten (10) days from receipt of notice.
2.	If petitioner company had indeed relocated its operations from Tarlac to Manila, it is puzzling why out of the 50 employees, it singled out the two (2) plain laborers to man the Manila operations. Such actuation tended to support the allegation that private respondents were discriminated against because of their union activities and their refusal to disaffiliate from the union.
A motion for reconsideration subsequently filed by the petitioner was denied. Hence this present petition.
Altogether, there is a strong basis for public respondent’s conclusion that the controversial transfer was not prompted by legitimate reasons. Petitioner company had indeed discriminated against Magno and Halili when the duo was selected for reassignment to Manila. The transfer was timed at the height of union concerted activities in the firm, deliberately calculated to demoralize the other union members. Under such questionable circumstances, private respondents had a valid reason to refuse the Manila reassignment. 7 Public respondent did not err or abuse his discretion in upholding the employees’ cause.
WHEREFORE, the questioned order dated April 8, 1986 of Deputy Minister Leogardo, Jr. is hereby AFFIRMED. Assuming that the positions of private respondents have been filled up, they should be reinstated to substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, privileges and benefits due them. Costs against petitioner.
Feliciano and Cortes, JJ., is on leave.
1.	Rollo, pp. 21, 23-24.
3.	Annex F, Rollo, p. 73.
4.	Dosch v. NLRC, G.R. No. 51182, July 5, 1982, 123 SCRA 296; Petrophil v. NLRC, G.R. No. 64048, August 29, 1986, 143 SCRA 700; Abbott Laboratories Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713.
5.	International Harvester Macleod v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 7328, May 18, 1987, 149 SCRA 641.
6.	Phil. Japan Active Carbon Corp., Et. Al. v. NLRC and Quinanola, G.R. No. 83239, March 8, 1989.
7.	See Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co. Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78604, May 9, 1988, 161 SCRA 271.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.