Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII
Cebu City
 
 
-----------,
Complainant,
 
                                                                 NLRC Case No. RAB-VII 09-8907-2012
 
         -versus-
 
--------------------),
                                             Respondents.
X---------------------------------------------------X
 
 
POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 
         ABC Company Incorporated through undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Office, most respectfully submit this Position Paper, and state that:
 
I
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
        
         While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and
protection of the working class, not every dispute shall be automatically decided in
favor of labor. Justice is due to the deserving, and must be dispensed in the light of
established facts and the applicable law and doctrine. Thus, it should not be
supposed that any complaint instituted by one will be automatically decided in
favor of the worker. Employers like herein Respondent Company also have their
own rights, which as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play.

Complainants’ causes of action against herein Respondent are devoid of any

merit both in fact and in law, hence, the said causes of action are unfounded and
frivolous, and necessarily must fail.

II
 THE PARTIES

Complainant ROSARIO AMPO (herein referred to as Complainant Ampo) is of

legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 6th Street, Happy Valley, Banilad,
Cebu City. She was employed as a 

Complainant KRISTINA MATIYAGA (herein referred to as Complainant

Matiyaga) is of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 6th Street, Happy
Valley, Banilad, Cebu City. 

Complainant DARA TORRES (herein referred to as Complainant Torres) is of

legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 6th Street, Happy Valley, Banilad,
Cebu City. 

Respondent ABC COMPANY INCORPORATED (herein referred to as ABC

Company Inc.), is a domestic company organized under the laws of the Philippines
and is engaged in the metal fabrication business. It may be served with summons,
orders, resolutions and other processes of this Honorable Office at 7th floor,
Beehive, ADR Building, Banilad, Cebu City. 

Respondent JUAN DELA CRUZ (herein referred to as Respondent Dela Cruz), is

a Filipino, married, of legal age. He is the General Manager of ABC Company Inc.
with office address at 7th floor, Beehive, ADR Building, Banilad, Cebu City where
he may be served with notices,orders and resolutions of this Honorable Office. 

III
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A, B and C who have been working in the ABC Company located in Cebu
City, were persuaded by their co-employees who are members of X union to
join in said union. 
2. In the meantime, the company issued a memorandum assigning them to
Cagayan De Oro City where its branch office is located.
3. The complainants alleged that the said memorandum was issued upon
learning that A, B, and C joined union X. 
4. What prompted the company to issue the memorandum was to request the
branch manager of Cagayan to provide them additional manpower given the
fact that additional machineries installed in the company premises. 
5. In reaction A, B and C who happened to be the most qualified employees to
man and operate the newly installed machineries formally requested ABC
 top management to reconsider its move to transfer them to Cagayan De Oro
City taking into account the additional expenses that they may incur, the
inconvenience that they may suffer, the fact that they are residents of Cebu
City and worst, they will be leaving their families in consequence of the
transfer. ABC company denied the request.
6. Incidentally, A, B and C, eventually decided to join union X. Whereof,
following the union election, they were elected as President, Vice-President,
and Secretary, respectively of said union. 
7. ABC Company issued them an ultimatum to proceed to their new working
assignment in Cagayan otherwise, they will be charged for gross
insubordination leading to the termination of their employment. 
8. A, B and C still refused to obey the memorandum and as a result, they were
dismissed. Thus, the filing of the complaint for unfair labor practice against
ABC Company and Juan de la Cruz as its general manager who issued the
subject memorandum.

IV
ISSUES

V
DISCUSSION / ARGUMENTS

Complainants right to organize were not violated by the respondent.

What prompted the transfer of the complainants to the Cagayan de Oro Branch
was not to prevent them from organizing themselves but stemmed from the need
of additional manpower equipped with adequate training and skills.

The right of the employers to transfer employees to different location has

long been recognized by the law.

In the case of Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp. v. NLRC, promulgated

on March 8, 19896 the court pronounced that:

It is the employer's prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its

employees' qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the
various areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will
function with maximum benefit to the company. An employee's right to security
of tenure does not give him such a vested right in his position as would deprive
the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he
will be most useful. When his transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor
prejudicial to him, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of his
salaries, benefits, and other privileges, the employee may not complain that it
amounts to a constructive dismissal.

Further, in the case of Yuco Chemical Industries, Inc. v. MOLE et al.

promulgated on May 28, 1990, the court emphasized:

. . . 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 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.
But like all other rights, there are limits. 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.

In the case of PT & T Corporation vs Alicia Laplana, promulgated on July

23, 1991, in a situation where an employer transferring an employee to another
office in the exercise of what it took to be sound business judgment and in
accordance with pre-determined and established office policy and practice, and of
the latter having what was believed to be legitimate reasons for declining that
transfer, rooted in considerations of personal convenience and difficulties for the
family. Under these circumstances, the solution proposed by the employee herself,
of her voluntary termination of her employment and the delivery to her of
corresponding separation pay, would appear to be the most equitable. Certainly,
the Court cannot accept the proposition that when an employee opposes his
employer's 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 employee's wishes that
should be made to prevail. 
In Tinio v. Smart Communications, Inc. (G.R. No. 171764, 08 June 2007), a
general manager filed suit for constructive dismissal after the company re-assigned
him from Cebu City to Manila City. In upholding the management prerogative of
the company to transfer employees, the Supreme Court noted that it has
“consistently recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an
employee from one office to another within the business establishment.”
As one of the employer’s rights, “it is the employer’s prerogative, based on its
assessment and perception of its employees’ qualifications, aptitudes and
competence, to move them around in the various areas of its business operations in
order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the company.”
The underlying reasoning here is that such privilege is “inherent in the employer’s
right to control and manage his enterprise effectively.”
The decision went further as to categorically state that the “employee’s right to
security of tenure does not give him a vested right to his position as would deprive
the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he
will be most useful.”
These are the limitations on the right to transfer employees: (1) the transfer
should not result in a demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and
other privileges; and (2) the transfer should not be unreasonable, or
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.

Position of the Defendant and Arguments

The defendant has the right to transfer the employees because there is a need
for additional manpower in the Cagayan de Oro Branch. Considering that the said
employees are the most qualified to handle the complicated machineries in the
said branch and the urgent need to mobilize said machineries whereby the training
of new employees would directly affect the business. The Company has no other
option but to transfer said employees.
 The company has also ensured that the said transfer is within the bounds of
the law. The employees were offered by

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Office to dismiss the instant complaint for utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. Cebu City, Philippines, March 6 , 2020.