LEONARDO v NLRC and REYNALDOS MARKETING (De Leon, Jr., 2000) ACTS!

Aurelio Fuerte was originally employed by Reynaldo's Marketing Corporation on August 1981 as a muffler specialist. n !anuary 199"# $e was transferred to t$e company's %ucat plant due to $is failure to meet $is sales &uota# and for t$at reason# $is super'isor's allowance was wit$drawn ()$p*++,week-. .e protested $is transfer by filing a complaint for illegal termination. n t$e ot$er $and# /anilo 0eonardo alleged t$at on April ""# 1991# $e was likewise approac$ed by t$e personnel manager of t$e company w$o informed $im t$at $is ser'ices were no longer needed. .e# too# filed a complaint for illegal termination. .e claims to $a'e also recei'ed a mont$ly allowance e&ual to )"#1++.++ as $is s$are in t$e profits of t$e auto2aircon di'ision. (3ote4 0eonardo was asked to e5plain an incident of alleged 6sideline6 work w$ic$ occurred on April ""# 1991 w$en t$e dri'er of a red Corolla arri'ed at t$e s$op looking for 0eonardo w$o would perform a pri'ate ser'ice on t$e 'e$icle. 7$en reports of t$e 6sideline6 work reac$ed management# it confronted 0eonardo and asked for an e5planation. .e ga'e contradictory e5cuses# e'entually claiming t$at t$e unaut$ori8ed ser'ice was for an aunt. 7$en pressed to present $is aunt# 0eonardo stopped reporting for work# filing $is complaint for illegal dismissal some 1+ mont$s after $is alleged termination.0A9 R AR9:;<R4 Reinstatement for bot$ Fuerte (before demotion- and 0eonardo# to t$eir former =obs# or )ayroll Reinstatement wit$out loss of seniority rig$ts and ot$er pri'ileges# inclusi'e of allowance and to t$eir ot$er benefits. 30RC4 modified t$e decision4 1- Reinstatement of Fuerte but wit$out backwages> "/ismissed t$e complaint of /anilo 0eonardo for lack of merit> and ?- deleted t$e monetary award as well as t$e award of moral damages and attorney's fees in fa'or of t$e complainants. MR denied. 0eonardo files for certiorari. 0ater# Fuerte filed for certiorari for annulment of decision# =oined by 0eonardo. ISS"E! 1-. 7 3 Fuerte@s transfer and demotion is in bad fait$ t$erefore constituting constructi'e dismissalA 3 . "-. 7 3 0eonardo@s complaint for illegal dismissal s$ould be dismissed for abandonment of workA B<%. ?-. 7 3 0eonardo was accorded due processA B<%. R"LING! 1-. An employer acts well wit$in its rig$ts in transferring an employee pro'ided t$at4 a- t$ere is no demotion in rank> or b- diminution in pay.

Constructi'e dismissal is defined as4 An involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. :n t$is case# $owe'er# t$e employer 3<C<R /<3:<% t$at #$ %a& rea''( de)o$#n* +er$e ,or -a+&e. ;$is was contained in t$e %inumpaang %alaysay of se'eral employees w$ic$ t$e 0A ignored. :t s$ould be borne in mind# t$at t$e rig$t to demote an employee also falls wit$in t$e category of management prerogati'es . An e).'o(er #& en$#$'ed $o #).o&e .rod+-$#v#$( &$andard& ,or #$& %or/er&, and #n ,a-$, non0-o).'#an-e )a( 1e v#&#$ed %#$2 a .ena'$( even )ore &evere $2an de)o$#on. %aid arrangement is an allowable e5ercise of company rig$ts. Fuerte did not abandon $is =ob ($e reported in %ucat and filed t$e illegal termination case w$ic$ is inconsistent wit$ abandonment-# and neit$er was $e constructi'ely dismissed by pri'ate respondent# t$erefore t$e 30RC was correct in ordering $is reinstatement but wit$out backwages. :n a case w$ere t$e employee's failure to work was occasioned neit$er by $is abandonment nor by a termination# t$e burden of economic loss is not rig$tfully s$ifted to t$e employer> eac$ party must bear $is own loss. "-. 0eonardo ne'er reported back to work after being pressed by t$e respondent company to present t$e customer regarding $is unaut$ori8ed solicitation of sideline work from t$e latter. Moreo'er# after $e left t$e respondent company# $e got employed wit$ /ennis Motors Corporation as Air2Con Mec$anic from ctober 1"# 199" to April ?# 1991. ;$e filing of t$e complaint# 1+ mont$s after t$e incident# appears to be an aftert$oug$t. ?-. 0eonardo was not terminated. .e only became t$e sub=ect of an in'estigation in w$ic$ $e was apparently loat$ to participate. .e refused to recei'e t$e memorandum from t$e personnel manager# asking $im to e5plain t$e incident in &uestion. :n Pi a !ut"Progressive #evelopment $orporation v %&R$, t$e %C $eld t$at t$at an e).'o(ee3& re,+&a' $o &#*n $2e )#n+$e& o, an #nve&$#*a$#on -anno$ ne*a$e $2e ,a-$ $2a$ 2e %a& a--orded d+e .ro-e&&.