G.R. No. 156963 - THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., VS. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered declaring that complainant was not illegally dismissed. In ordering her transfer from the Pensions Department to the Legal Department, the respondent company was just exercising a legitimate management prerogative. [5] The NLRC, in its Decision dated 27 November 2000, affirmed in toto the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in a decision dated 18 October 2002 reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed decision of public respondent NLRC is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondent is hereby ORDERED to pay petitioner separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, her full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. For this purpose, the case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings solely for the purpose of determining and/or computing the monetary liabilities of private respondents. Additionally, considering that private respondents were proven to be in bad faith in the constructive dismissal of petitioner, the former are hereby ordered to pay the latter exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) and moral damages also in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000). Petitioner assigned the following as errors on the part of the Court of Appeals: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS TRANSFER TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL FOR THE SAME IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE; THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS TRANSFER TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS THE RESPONDENT WHO SEVERED HER WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPANY; AND THERE BEING NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL TO SPEAK OF, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE PETITIONER TO PAY RESPONDENT SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES. [6] In short, the issue to be resolved is: Was respondent constructively dismissed or was her transfer a legitimate exercise of management prerogative? It is an established rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Courts power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court. [7] We have likewise held that factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and bind the Supreme Court, when supported by substantial evidence . [8] As borne by the records, it appears that there is a divergence between the findings of facts of