Dismissal Thru Demotion - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

This is another case which illustrates how a constructive dismissal happens or when an employee may deem his employment as terminated even if he is not actually dismissed. This is the case of Lina, a food technologist.

Lina was hired by a food manufacturing company engaged in the processing of dairy and chocolate products, juices and vegetables. As food technologist, her nature of work was highly technical as it consisted mainly in testing and assuring the quality of the company's products for the consuming public as well as product development. As such, she was assigned in a laboratory which was the most critical and most expensive area in the company premises where only a few highly trusted authorized personnel were allowed access. Sometimes Lina reported for work even on Sundays which entitled her to premium pays.

Barely five months on the job, an incident happened that triggered this case filed by Lina. She was then conducting a sensory evaluation survey of the vanilla syrup in one of the outlets of a client together with the production manager. The weather at that time was quite rough and stormy as there was a raging typhoon. On their way back to the office, a post fell on the company vehicle they were riding damaging the vehicle's windshield and side mirror.

Back in the office, the company driver was investigated. In the investigation, he narrated that at the time the incident happened Lina was actually scouting for a new residence using the company vehicle without prior permission from the general manager and during office hours. The company accorded credence to the driver's narration and considered Lina to have violated company rules and regulations.

But the company did not confront Lina about the driver's allegations. Instead Lina just found herself transferred from the laboratory to the vegetable processing section where she cored lettuce, minced and repacked garlic and other similar work. She was likewise restricted from entering the laboratory.

Unhappy in her new humiliating and menial job, Lina stopped reporting for work. The following day she sent a letter to the president and chairman of the board that she "will no longer report for work because of your drastic and oppressive action". Besides, according to Lina, she has already filed a case.

A complaint was indeed filed by Lina against the company, its president and its general manager for constructive dismissal and non-payment of premium pay. She also claimed overtime pay as well as moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

The company contended on the other hand that Lina was given a less sensitive assignment outside of the laboratory on account of her dishonesty which resulted in loss of trust and confidence. According to the company, Lina was not constructively dismissed but merely transferred in the exercise of their management prerogative although her dishonesty could even have merited dismissal. Was the company correct?

No. It is indeed a management prerogative to transfer an employee from one office to another. But such prerogative must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. The employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to prove these, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal is quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. It exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.

In this case, the food company failed to justify Lina's transfer from the position of food technologist in the laboratory to a worker in the vegetable processing section. As food technologist in the laboratory she occupied a highly technical position requiring use of her mental faculty. As a worker in the vegetable processing section she performed mere mechanical work. The radical change in Lina's nature of work unquestionably resulted in, as rightly perceived by Lina, a demeaning and humiliating work condition -- a demotion in rank beyond doubt. A transfer from a workplace where only highly trusted authorized personnel are allowed access to a workplace that is not as critical is another reason enough for Lina to rightly perceive that she has been constructively dismissed.

The company should therefore reinstate Lina as food technologist in the laboratory without loss of seniority rights and privileges with full backwages, allowances and other benefits to be computed from date of dismissal to actual reinstatement (Blue Dairy Corp. et. al. vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. No. 129843 Sept. 14, 1999).

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected]