Duldulao v. Baguio Colleges Foundation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Constancia P. Duldulao was hired by respondent Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF) as a secretary/clerk-typist in the College of Law in June 1987. In August 1996, a law student filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged irregularities. Petitioner failed to submit her answer despite extensions. Dean Honorato V. Aquino recommended her reassignment outside the College of Law due to her failure to answer and admission of fraternizing with students. On October 1, 1996, a Department Order reassigned petitioner to the offices of the Principals of the High School and Elementary Departments, effective October 2, 1996. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and requested another extension, but the matter was elevated to the Executive Board. She eventually filed her answer on October 7, 1996. Petitioner filed a grievance case, which was transferred to the Administrative Investigating Committee. The Committee found the Department Order appropriate as a measure to prevent controversy within the College of Law and recommended her new assignment, which was approved. A Fact-Finding Committee later reported that while petitioner was not guilty of specific charges, her implementation of college policies had alienated some students due to lack of circumspection. Despite the Department Order, petitioner took leaves of absence from October 1996 to January 1997. On February 17, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the NLRC, alleging arbitrary reassignment, increased expenses, procedural lapses, and demotion. Procedural History: The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering reinstatement and awarding damages. The NLRC reversed this decision, sustaining the transfer and dismissing the complaint, holding that petitioner was neither demoted nor dismissed, her salary and benefits remained the same, and due process was observed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision, ruling that petitioner was not constructively dismissed and that the transfer was a temporary measure to prevent controversy, not a disciplinary sanction. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, reiterating her claim of constructive dismissal, bad faith, and punitive intent in her transfer, and her entitlement to backwages, benefits, and moral damages. Respondent BCF asserted that the transfer was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative based on student polarization, petitioner's failure to file her answer, and her admission of fraternization.
Issue(s)
Whether the reassignment of petitioner Constancia P. Duldulao from the College of Law to the High School and Elementary Departments constitutes constructive dismissal. Whether the reassignment violated petitioner's right to due process.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the NLRC's ruling is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court held that constructive dismissal exists when an employer's act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain becomes so unbearable that an employee has no choice but to forego employment, or when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely due to a demotion in rank or diminution in pay. In this case, the transfer did not constitute constructive dismissal because petitioner had no vested right to her specific position in the College of Law, and the respondent, as the BCF system, had the prerogative to transfer her to another department where she would be most useful, provided it was done in good faith. The Court reiterated that management's prerogative to transfer employees is recognized as long as the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, nor is it unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial, or used as a subterfuge to dismiss an employee. The Court found that the transfer was not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial, as the difference in travel distance was negligible and the duties performed as a secretary/clerk-typist remained the same in the new assignment. Petitioner's claim of demotion in rank and status was also unsubstantiated. The Court emphasized that BCF, as an educational institution, could not afford to have a discordant studentry or a college tainted with controversy, and that the harmony and integrity of its faculty, staff, and students were as important as its resources. Therefore, the reassignment was a necessary measure to maintain the institution's integrity and harmony. The Court stated that it cannot accept the proposition that when an employee opposes a transfer, and there is no bad faith or underhanded motives from the employer, the employee's wishes should prevail. Mere incidental inconvenience is insufficient to warrant a claim of constructive dismissal. The Court found that petitioner could not claim constructive dismissal simply because the transfer was against her wishes and, in her view, amounted to a demotion. On the issue of due process: The Court ruled that reassignments made by management pending investigation of alleged irregularities fall within the ambit of management prerogative and are not necessarily violations of due process. The transfer in this case was not intended as a penalty but as a preventive measure to avoid further damage to the College of Law and was not the culmination of the administrative case. Therefore, the order of transfer prior to the submission of her answer did not violate her right to due process. The Court cited jurisprudence upholding reassignments pending investigations as a measure of protection for the company's property, similar to preventive suspension, pending investigation of malfeasance or misfeasance.
Main Doctrine
A reassignment or transfer of an employee, made in good faith and not resulting in demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and privileges, and not used as a subterfuge to dismiss an employee, does not constitute constructive dismissal, even if it is against the employee's wishes or causes incidental inconvenience. Such transfers may be validly made pending investigation as a preventive measure.