G.R. No. 182848 - EMIRATE SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC. AND ROBERTO A. YAN, VS. GLENDA M. MENESE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he ordered the petitioners to immediately reinstate Menese and, solidarily, to pay her full backwages of P83,443.75 (latest computation); P66,924.00 in monetary benefits; P50,000.00 and P20,000.00 in moral and exemplary damages, respectively; and attorney's fees of P15,036.74. The petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission ( NLRC ). On September 30, 2003, the NLRC Second Division issued a resolution [8] granting the appeal and reversing the labor arbiter's decision. It ruled that Menese was not constructively dismissed but was merely transferred to another detachment. It opined that the transfer was a valid exercise of the petitioners' management prerogative. However, it ruled that despite Menese's refusal to accept the transfer, she cannot be made liable for abandonment as her refusal was based on her honest belief that she was being constructively dismissed. The NLRC ordered Menese, at her option, to immediately report to the agency's head office and the agency to accept her back to work. It absolved Yan from liability, and deleted the award of backwages, overtime pay and damages. On October 28, 2003, Menese filed a partial motion for reconsideration [9] of the NLRC resolution and later (on June 17, 2005), a motion to recall the entry of judgment of October 31, 2003. On June 1, 2007, the NLRC rendered a resolution [10] setting aside the entry of judgment and denying Menese's partial motion for reconsideration. The Petition for Certiorari Menese elevated her case to the CA through a petition for certiorari [11] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In the main, she argued that the agency was in bad faith when it issued the memoranda dated May 16, 2001, [12] May 22, 2001 [13] and May 28, 2001, [14] ordering her transfer from the PGH detachment to the agency's head office. She posited that it was a ploy to create a vacancy in the detachment to accommodate the entry of Claro, Dapula's protégée. She regarded the transfer as a removal from her position at PGH -- a constructive dismissal. The agency, in rebuttal, posited that Menese was not illegally dismissed, but was merely transferred to its head office in response to the request of the new head of the UP-PGH security division for the transfer. The action, it maintained, was a valid exercise of its management prerogative. Thus, Menese was guilty of abandoning her employment when she refused to report for work at her new posting. The CA Decision The CA granted the petition in its decision of February 28, 2008. [15] It set aside the assailed resolutions of the NLRC and reinstated the March 14, 2002 decision of the labor arbiter. As the labor arbiter did, the CA found Menese to have been constructively, and therefore illegally, dismissed. It noted that the memoranda [16] on Menese's transfer were prompted by Dacula's letter, dated May 8, 2001, [17] to Yan, which contained allegations on Menese's supposed unprofessional conduct and involvement in nepotism. It further no