Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. v. Albayda, Jr.

No. 172174, 23 August 2010

FACTS:
Respondent Albayda is a District Sales Manager of Petitioner Pharmacia
and Upjohn, Inc. assigned in District XI in the Western Visayas.
Pursuant to a district territorial configuration for the new marketing
and sales direction for the year 2000, respondent was informed in a
memorandum that he will be reassigned as a District Sales Manager in
Cagayan De Oro, which respondent adamantly refused for reasons of
personal inconvenience and dislocation from his family.
Pharmacias National Sales and External Business Manager tried to
convince him because being one of the top performing sales managers
of the company, the District office in Northern Mindanao, which has
been dismally performing in the past, however, needs his skills and
expertise, respondent still refused the transfer. The Human Resource
Manager also met with respondent telling him that he will be entitled
to Relocation Benefits and Allowance and reiterated in a series of
memorandum that his services were badly needed in Cagayan de Oro
City due to the latters poor performance and also for his personal
growth. Respondent was even given the option to transfer in Metro
Manila with the same position as the District Manager was transferred
to a different position, which he again refused. He viewed the transfer
as the companys scheme to terminate his employment. Respondent
stopped answering these memoranda, thus, the company sent him
another memo dated 26 June 2000 directing him to report for work
within 5 days from receipt, otherwise, he will be terminated on the
basis of being absent without official leave (AWOL) and on July 13,
2000, the company sent him a memo notifying him of their decision to
terminate his services on the ground of being AWOL and
insubordination after he had repeatedly refused to report for work
despite due notice, hence this complaint for constructive dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the transfer of respondent from Western Visayas to
Cagayan De Oro City was a valid exercise of the companys
management prerogative.
HELD:
YES
RATIO:

Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogative to

transfer or assign employees from one office or area to another,
provided there is no demotion in rank, diminution of salary, benefits
and other privileges, and the action is not motivated by discrimination,
made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion
without sufficient cause.
The transfer in this case was a valid exercise of a legitimate
management prerogative to maximize business opportunities, growth
and development of personnel and the expertise of respondent was
needed to build the companys business in CDO, which dismally
performed in 1999. There was no demotion as he will also be holding
the same position and the transfer did not indicate that his
emoluments will be reduced. He was even informed that he would be
entitled to Relocation benefits and allowance.
Furthermore, in his employment contract, he agreed that he was
willing to be assigned to any work or workplace during the period of his
employment as may be determined by the company whenever the
operations require such assignment. There was no evidence showing
that the restructuring of the company was done with ill motives or with
malice and bad faith purposely to constructively terminate respondent.
The CA failed to recognize the very nature of a salesman that it is
mobile and ambulant.
On the issue of due process, while no actual hearing was held, the
same is not fatal, as only an ample opportunity to be heard is what
the law requires in order to satisfy due process of law. The twin notice
were complied with when respondent was sent a memo which served
as a final warning directing him to report for work within 5 days
otherwise he will be terminated on the ground of being AWOL. Upon
receipt of this first memo, respondent could have asked for a
conference with the company which he failed to do, hence the second
memo informing him of the companys decision to terminate his
services for being AWOL and for insubordination for deliberately
ignoring the defying the lawful orders of his employer which is a valid
ground for termination under Art. 282 (a) of the Labor Code. He was,
however, awarded separation pay as a measure of social justice as this
was his 1st infraction and considering his 22 years of services with the
company.