Allied Banking Corp v CA

This petition is assaiing the CA decision upholding the decision of the

NLRC, modifying the decision of the LA holding that allied banking
corp illegally dismissed Galanida

Facts
Galandia was hired by allied on jan 11 1978 and rose from
accountant bookkeepr to assistant manager in 1991. His
appointment was covered by a notice of personnel action, which
provides as one of the conditions of the employment the
provisions on allieds right to transfer employees to other
departments or branches of the bank as the need arises He was
promoted and transferred several times
Having been rotated around cebu, galandia was now to be
transferred outside of cebu to bacood, but he refused parental
obligations, expenses, away from his family he filed a
complaint before LA for constructive dismissal
Subsequently, Allied told galandia he was to report to the
tagbiliran city branch effective 23 may 1994 refused allied
warned and required galandia to this (no discrimination daw,
other workers not exempt from this, to exempt him would result
to favoritism, smooth and uninterrupted service to the public)
o Refusal is penalized under art 12 of the banks employee
discipline policy and procedure (suspension to dismissal)
o Galandia said whether the banks penalty for my refusal
be suspension or dismissal it will all the more establish and
fortify my complaint now pending at NLRC + charged allied
with discrimination and favoritism
o Oct 5 1994: galandia received memo terminated services
effective September 1, 1994. reasons:
Galandias continued refusal to be transferred
 Refusal to report to work despite the denial of his
application for additional vacation leave
Ruling of LA
Allied abused its management prerogative in ordering transfer of
galandia to Bacolod and tagbiliran branches,
In ruling that galandias refusal to transfer did not amount to
insubordination, the LA misquoted an SC decision in Dosch v
NLRC While it may be true that the right to transfer or reassign
an employee is an employers exclusive right and the prerogative
of management, such right is not absolute Refusal to obey a
transfer order cannot be considered insubordination where
employee cited reason for said refusal, such (sic) as that of being
away from the family
LA galandias transfer was inconvenient and prejudicial since
galandia would have to incur expenses for board, lodging, travel
+ Allied bank failed to show any business urgency that would
justify the matter
LA gave credence to galandias claim that Ms. Co got special
treatment
LA awarded galandia back wages plus separation pay (working
for another bank na)

Ruling of NLRC
Affirmed LA characterized transfer as a demotion since smaller
brances yung Bacolod and tagbiliran
Unlawful discrimination since allied did not transfer several junior
accountants in cebu
Gave ms. Co special treatment
Lack of due process allied did not conduct any hearing + no
termination notice dismissed in BF unfair labor practice
 Allied filed MoR which the NLRC denied

Ruling of CA
Citing Dosch, CA held galandias refusal to comply with transfer
orders did not warrant his dismissal
Basically affirmed LA and NLRC
MoR denied

Issues:
WON transfer of galandia was a valid exercise of its management
prerogative PETITION IS MERITOUS

PRELIMINARY MATTER: MISQUOTING THE DECISIONS OF THE SC

The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and, worse, the
assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, both misquoted the
Supreme Courts ruling in Dosch v. NLRC.
o The phrase [r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be
considered insubordination where employee cited reason
for said refusal, such as that of being away from the family
does not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision.
o Galanidas counsel lifted the erroneous phrase from one of
the italicized lines in the syllabus of Dosch found in the SCRA

Syllabus not the work of the court, but the work of the reporter
who gives his understanding of the decision
o For the convenience of lawers
o Not part of courts decision
o A counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully
considered text in the decision of the court
o In this case clear that they deliberately made the quote
 from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the SC
admonished for what is at the least patent carelessness, if
not an outright attempt to mislead the parties and courts
taking cognizance of this case
o Rule 10.02, canon 10 of the code of professional
responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
It is the duty of all officers of the court to cite the rulings and
decisions of the SC accurately
WHETHER GALANDIA WAS DISMISSED FOR JUST CAUSE
We accord great weight and even finality to the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals, particularly when they affirm the findings of
the NLRC or the lower courts
o Exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded on
speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) when the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when
there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(4) when the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts
are conflicting; (5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, has gone beyond the issues of the case and such
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee; (6) when the judgment of the appellate court is
premised on a misapprehension of facts or when it has failed
to consider certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, will justify a different conclusion; (7) when the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; and (8) when the findings
of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence
of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record
o AFTER SCRUTINY OF THE RECORDS WE FIND
THAT SOME OF THESE EXCEPTIONS OBTAIN IN THE
 PRESENT CASE!
The rule is that the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within
the ambit of the employers prerogatives. The employer exercises
the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and
according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer
does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employees
salary, benefits and other privileges. In illegal dismissal cases, the
employer has the burden of showing that the transfer is not
unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced
employee.
Constant transfer of personnel standard practice of Allied for
internal control and to enable bank employees to gain necessary
experience for eventual promotion (BSP required rotation
incompatible functions!)
Galandia was well aware of this policy and was even a condition
of his employment and he consented to this
Evidence contradicts charge allied discriminated against galandia
14 other personnel were rotated none of the other transferees
joined galandia in his complaint
As regards ms. Co her assignment to cebu was not in any way
related to galandias transfer (based on galandias letter)
Not a demotion no proof of diminished salary, benefits, or
privileges
o Allied bank in a letter assured him of this
No basis for finding allied guilty of unfair labor practices
o Unfair labor practices relate only to consti right to self-
organize no proof galandia joined a unuin
WON galandia could validly refuse transfer order on the grounds
he stated?
o Homeowners savings and loan assoc v NLRC certainly the
court cannot accept the proposition that when an employee
opposes his employers decision to transfer him to another
 work place, there being no bad faith or underhanded motives
on the part of either party, it is the employees wishes that
should be made to prevail
Dosch not applicable! he refused a transfer consequential to a
promotion (no law compels an employee to accept promotion +
promoted position didnt exist pa then + inter country yung kay
dosch!)
The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful
disobedience of a lawful order of an employers galandias
continued refusal in accordance with article 282 (a) of the labor
code. NOT ENTITLED TO SEP. PAY
WHETHER GALANDIAS DISMISSAL VIOLATED THE REQUIREMENT OF
NOTICE AND HEARING
On the requirement of a hearing, this Court has held that the
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. An
actual hearing is not necessary. The exchange of several letters, in
which Galanidas wife, a lawyer with the City Prosecutors Office,
assisted him, gave Galanida an opportunity to respond to the
charges against him.