Tuason v. Bank of Commerce
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Michelle T. Tuason (Tuason) was hired by respondent Bank of Commerce (BOC) as head of its Marketing Department. She was later designated officer-in-charge and then officially appointed head of the Property Management Group (PMG). Tuason's duties involved disposing of BOC's real and acquired properties. Problems arose when Tuason was administratively charged with irregularities regarding a property sale, leading to a 30-day suspension. In 2006, she received a 63% overall performance rating. On July 5, 2007, Tuason wrote to her sector head, Mario Padilla, stating she had no intention of resigning despite his previous request. She expressed stress and requested a leave of absence. BOC's HRMDG disapproved her leave request and directed her to report to work. Tuason reiterated her request for leave, citing stress and the conflicting developments, including the hiring of a new PMG Head effective the same day she was asked to report back. She inquired about her employment status as another person was occupying her office. BOC eventually approved her leave but directed her to report for a "new assignment." When she failed to report, BOC warned her of being deemed to have lost interest. Tuason expressed confusion over BOC's letters and stated she had filed a case for constructive dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed Tuason's complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, finding that Tuason had been constructively dismissed and ordering BOC to pay separation pay and backwages. BOC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the NLRC's decision, upholding the LA's ruling and finding Tuason's reassignment to be a valid exercise of management prerogative. The Petition: Tuason filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising the issue of whether the pressure exerted upon her to resign without reason, coupled with the belated feigned transfer, constituted constructive dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the pressure exerted upon petitioner to resign without reason, as well as the belated feigned transfer of petitioner to another assignment constitutes constructive dismissal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was no evidence to prove Tuason's claim that she was asked to resign. Whether Tuason's reassignment to BOC's Business Segment was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The March 31, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In its place, the April 30, 2009 NLRC Decision is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of pressure to resign and constructive dismissal: The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding there was no evidence of pressure to resign. The Court noted Tuason's July 5, 2007 memo to Padilla, which chronicled exchanges regarding her employment and her being asked to resign without explanation. BOC's silence in response to this memo was considered an admission of its contents by the NLRC. The Court found that BOC's subsequent offer of consultancy work and later reassignment was a mere afterthought to cover up their treatment of Tuason. The Court emphasized that BOC's act of installing a new PMG Head and having him take over Tuason's position and office on July 16, 2007, while Tuason was on leave and without formal communication, was a definitive act to oust her. This situation, where a reasonable person would feel compelled to give up their position, constitutes constructive dismissal. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' finding of no evidence to prove Tuason's claim of being asked to resign: The Court disagreed with the CA's finding. It pointed to Tuason's July 5, 2007 memo as evidence, detailing Padilla's request for her resignation and her stress due to the situation. The memo also stated that Padilla had already hired someone to head the PMG. The Court highlighted that BOC did not refute or offer clarification regarding this serious charge in Tuason's memo, which the NLRC considered as an admission. On the issue of reassignment as a valid exercise of management prerogative: While acknowledging that transfers and reassignments are generally valid exercises of management prerogative, the Court stressed that such rights must be exercised within the boundaries of justice and fair play. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that transfers should not be unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial, nor involve a demotion or diminution of benefits. In this case, the Court found that BOC failed to establish a connection between Tuason's previous administrative charge or poor performance rating and the attempts to transfer or sever her services. The Court noted that the offer of a new assignment in the Business Segment only came on July 26, 2007, ten days after her replacement had already assumed her position and office. This delay and lack of formal communication, coupled with the installation of a new head, rendered the purported reassignment a mere cover-up for her dismissal, thus constituting constructive dismissal.
Main Doctrine
The exercise of management prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic element of justice and fair play. A transfer or reassignment should not be unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor prejudicial to the employee, and should not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits, and other privileges, as to constitute constructive dismissal.