Jurisprudence on Management Prerogative
Submitted by: Hannah Dioquino and Ryann Cabañero
Case
Jenny F. Peckson vs
Robinsons Supermarket
Corporation, et al., G.R. No.
198534, July 3, 2013
Philippine National Bank vs
Supreme Court’s conclusion on
the propriety of the exercise of
management prerogative
The managerial prerogative to
transfer personnel must be
exercised without grave abuse
of discretion. Having the right
should not be confused with the
manner in which that right is
exercised. Thus, it cannot be
used as a subterfuge by the
employer to rid himself of an
undesirable worker. In
particular, the employer must
be able to show that the
transfer is not unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial to
the employee; nor does it
involve a demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salaries,
privileges and other benefits.
PNB's action of implementing
the redundancy program is
Facts/evidence/law Synopsis
supporting the conclusion
Explain when the exercise of
management is proper and when it is
improper (based on the cases)
1. The transfer of Jenny F. 1. The exercise of management
Peckson from Category is proper when the employers
Buyer to Provincial have a right to impose a
Coordinator is not a penalty of dismissal on
demotion since both employees by reason of loss
positions had no significant of trust and confidence.
disparity in the required
skill, experience and 2. The burden of proof is in the
aptitude. employer to prove that he has
practiced the exercise of
The Category Buyer position “management prerogative”.
demanded the traits of
punctuality, diligence and
attentiveness because it is a
frontline position in the day-to-day
business operations of RSC which
the petitioner, unfortunately, did
not possess since she had records
of frequent tardiness.
1. The PNB conducted series
of meetings with petitioner
Jumelito T. Dalmacio, G.R. within the ambit of
No. 202357, July 5, 2007 "management prerogative" to
upgrade and enhance the
computer system of the bank.
and other affected
employees to purposely
look for placement of the
displaced employees to
other positions suited for
him when he was informed
of the redundancy
program.

2. Dalmacio did not object

against the PNB on him
being terminated due to
the redundancy program.

3. Jumelito Dalmacio was

hired by Technopac after he
was dismissed by the PNB
and only after he left the
job at Technopac that he
filed a complaint against
PNB.

Dalmacio signed a Deed of

Quitclaim and Release when he
was terminated by the PNB.

The exercise of CAB of 1. Article 297(c) of the Labor

Central Azucarera de Bais managerial prerogative to Code provides that an
and Antonio Steven L. Chan dismiss Zuelo Apostol has employer may terminate
 reasonably shown that the
vs Heirs of Zuelo Apostol latter violated company rules
G.R. No. 215314, March 14, for utilizing company-owned
2018 materials and equipment.
The promotion of employees to
Ernesto Galang And Ma. managerial or executive
the services of an employee
for fraud or willful breach
of the trust reposed in him.
2. In another case, it was
stated that an employer
has a distinct prerogative to
dismiss an employee if the
former has ample reason to
distrust the latter or if there
is sufficient evidence to
show that the employee
has been guilty of breach of
trust. This authority of the
employer to dismiss an
employee cannot be denied
whenever acts of violation
are noted by the employer.
3. Zuelo Apostol violated For
violating Rule 9 of the Rules
of Discipline of Central
Azucarera de Bais and he
even sent a letter of
apology to the company
president.
Petitioners did not present any The exercise of management was
evidence showing BTCI's adopted proper in the instant case.
Olga Jasmin Chan Vs. Boie positions rests upon the rules and policies laying out the
Takeda Chemicals, Inc. discretion of management. standards of promotion of an Management has exclusive
And/Or Kazuhiko Nomura, Thus, the Labor Arbiters, the employee to National Sales prerogatives to determine the
G.R. No. 183934, July 20, different Divisions of the NLRC, Director. They did not present the qualifications and fitness of workers
2016 and even courts, are not vested qualification standards (which BTCl for hiring and firing, promotion or
with managerial authority. The did not allegedly follow) needed reassignment.
employer's exercise of for the position. Petitioners merely
management prerogatives, with assumed that one of them was Accordingly, BTCI, pursued its
or without reason, does not per better for the job compared to management prerogatives when it
se constitute unjust Villanueva. arrived to the decision of promoting
discrimination, unless there is a Villanueva as National Sales Director
showing of grave abuse of In the absence of any qualification “after careful assessment of the
discretion. In this case,the Court
standards that BTCI allegedly situation, the needs of the position
found none. gravely abused to refuse to follow, and the qualification of the respective
the Court cannot substitute its own candidates.”
judgment on the qualifications of
Villanueva. The exercise of management
prerogatives would have been
We must bear in mind the legal improper if it is tainted with bias, such
dictum that, "he who asserts, not as if the BTCI solely relied to the
he who denies, must prove." recommendation of K Search Asia
Consulting company, a partner
company.
The Court have appreciated that The decision was lodged on the The case presented an improper use
Diwa Asia Publishing, Inc. the circumstances surrounding following facts: of management prerogatives. The
and Saturnino Belen vs the case present a hostile and Asuncion’s emails where the management has created a working
Mary Grace U. De Leon, unbearable working communication, both language and environment where it was impossible
G.R. No. 203587, August environment that reasonably tone, indicate a pattern of fault- for the respondent to continue
13, 2018 compelled the respondent to finding and nitpicking and an rendering work, where she
leave her employment. Even if attitude of disdain. experienced insensibility and disdain
the allegations were true, that
respondent’s performance had
been deficient and
unsatisfactory, the
management’s actuations
cannot be excused on the basis
of management prerogative.
from the employer. In other words,
Lusterio’s affidavit who cited 3 the respondent was constructively
specific instances of mistreatment, dismissed.
stating that there were other
instances when Asuncion berated
respondent in front of her and
others; and her knowledge of the
difficulty the respondent had to
bear and that Asuncion had been
“Cruel” to them.
The talk about the separation
where the conversation dealt with
not just an option to leave but
“management’s decision of her
separation from the company.”
Where petitioners evidently
preferred that respondent no
longer worked for Diwa.
Dulig’s work at Diwa’s HR- Dulig
performing functions that properly
belonged to respondent including
representing HR in company
meetings and handling the
separation of Diwa employees.
Respondent’s Demotion where
respondent was excluded in HR
decision making in the company
such as the termination of the 2
employees.
Laptop-shoving incident where
petitioner’s denial was
unsupported by any testimony or
evidence.