View full case

JENNY F. PECKSON v. ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION

FACTS:

The petitioner, Jenny F. Peckson, was formerly employed by Robinsons Supermarket Corporation (RSC) as a Sales Clerk and later promoted to Category Buyer. However, she was reassigned to the position of Provincial Coordinator by RSC's Assistant Vice-President for Merchandising, Roena Sarte, which the petitioner considered as a demotion. The petitioner refused to accept her new assignment and did not turn over her responsibilities to the new Category Buyer. RSC demanded an explanation from her but she ignored the deadline. The petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against RSC, Sarte, and other corporate officers. Despite instructions from Sarte to report to the Metroeast Depot, the petitioner refused to comply. The petitioner argued that her new position was clerical and a demotion compared to being a Category Buyer. She also claimed that she was forced to submit a courtesy resignation in exchange for a separation pay. RSC denied the petitioner's claims and asserted that her transfer was not a demotion. They cited the petitioner's poor performance and habitual tardiness as reasons for the reassignment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioner's complaint, stating that job reassignment was within the prerogative of the employer and the petitioner cannot refuse her transfer.

The petitioner was transferred from the position of Category Buyer to Provincial Coordinator by the respondents. She resisted the transfer, contending that it was a demotion without due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the transfer was necessary due to the petitioner's lack of punctuality, diligence, and attentiveness. Additionally, the Labor Arbiter determined that the petitioner's refusal to accept her new position constituted insubordination. Subsequently, the petitioner tendered her resignation, claiming that she had been subjected to ridicule and unfair treatment by clients and co-employees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision, stating that the transfer did not constitute a demotion and that there was no significant disparity in the requirements between the two positions. The NLRC also reiterated that management had the right to transfer employees as long as there was no demotion or diminution of benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision, deferring to the NLRC's findings supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, alleging bad faith and lack of due process in her transfer. She further alleged that the respondents manipulated the facts and subjected her to humiliation and ridicule.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the transfer of the petitioner to a different position amounts to constructive dismissal.

  2. Whether the petitioner was accorded due process and not subjected to discrimination.

  3. Whether or not the findings of fact and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are supported by substantial evidence.

RULING:

  1. The transfer of the petitioner to a different position does not amount to constructive dismissal. The transfer is considered reasonable, convenient, and not prejudicial to the petitioner. It does not involve a demotion in rank or decrease in salary and benefits. Therefore, the transfer is within the employer's managerial prerogative and does not constitute constructive dismissal.

  2. The petitioner was accorded due process and was not subjected to discrimination. The employer gave the petitioner verbal reminders and asked her in writing twice to explain her refusal to accept the transfer. The petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation and even committed acts of insubordination. The measures taken by the employer, such as cutting off the petitioner's email access and informing clients and branches of the changes, were necessary responses to the petitioner's resistance to the transfer and not intended to embarrass her.

  3. Yes, the findings of fact and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are supported by substantial evidence. The Court generally accords great weight and respect to the findings of fact and conclusions of labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. In this case, there is no clear showing that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are bereft of substantiation. Moreover, when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, these findings and conclusions are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The exercise of managerial prerogative to transfer personnel has limits, and the employer must show that the transfer is without grave abuse of discretion, taking into account the basic elements of justice and fair play. Management prerogative cannot be used as a subterfuge to remove undesirable workers. (Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation)

  • In case of constructive dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds, such as genuine business necessity. The transfer must not be unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and must not involve a demotion in rank or decrease in salaries and benefits. Failure to meet this burden of proof will result in the employee's demotion being considered unlawful constructive dismissal. (Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. v. NLRC)

  • Judicial review of labor cases is limited to evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor officials' findings rest. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally reviews only errors of law. (Acebedo Optical)

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the Court of Appeals. It only reviews errors of law.

  • The Court generally accords great weight and respect to the findings of fact and conclusions of labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.

  • The findings of fact and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed, especially when upheld by the Court of Appeals.