ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (ZANECO), INC., AND ADELMO P. LAPUT, ACTING GENERAL MANAGER, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 8TH DIVISION, CAGAYAN…

Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, brought by the Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, known as ZANECO, and its Acting General Manager Adelmo Laput, against the National Labor Relations Commission and the employee concerned. The cooperative asks the Supreme Court to correct the labor commission for reversing the labor arbiter and declaring the employee constructively dismissed. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a valid exercise of management's prerogative to transfer personnel and a transfer so unreasonable that it becomes a dismissal in disguise, and it reminds the bar that certiorari against the labor commission is narrow.

Procedural History

The employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Executive Labor Arbiter. The arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that the employee had abandoned her job. The employee appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The commission reversed the arbiter, declared her constructively dismissed, and ordered separation pay or retirement benefits, whichever is higher, plus backwages to be determined in pre-execution proceedings, and attorney's fees of ten percent of the total award. The cooperative moved for reconsideration, and the commission denied it. The cooperative then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

ZANECO is an electric cooperative under the supervision of the National Electrification Administration, managed day to day by a Board of Directors. It hired the employee in November 1994 as Clerk and Receptionist, and she became regular. She was later designated Acting Head of the Human Resource Division and Secretary to the General Manager, holding those positions for nine years, and at the time of the controversy she was receiving a monthly salary of 20,136 pesos.

In 2009, to address system loss, theft of electricity, and staffing gaps, management temporarily reassigned personnel. The employee was ordered transferred temporarily to the Liloy Area Office effective June 9, 2009. She asked for reconsideration, citing her recent marriage, a miscarriage, and ongoing medical treatment, and her transfer was moved to July 16, 2009. A second request was denied, and she reported to Liloy. After about two and a half months she asked to be returned to the main office in Dipolog City to be reunited with her husband. She then went on approved leave from December 10 to December 29, 2009 for a medical check-up.

She did not return to work. In January 2010 she asked to be reassigned to the main office, saying she was two months pregnant and advised by her doctor to avoid travel and strenuous activity, and she admitted she filed no leave from December 30, 2009 to January 4, 2010. Management denied the request. She wrote again in February, still without reporting for work and without filing any leave. Management sent notices about her remaining leave credits in March and April 2010, but her mother refused to receive them and would not disclose her whereabouts. She pleaded with the President and the Board for humanitarian consideration, then asked to be assigned to the Piñan Area Office. Management issued memoranda in July and September 2010 directing her to explain within seventy-two hours why she should not be disciplined for not reporting since January 2010. She did not comply, and instead applied for retirement. On October 14, 2010, ZANECO terminated her for failure and refusal to report for work.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter.
• Whether or not the employee's temporary transfer to the Liloy Area Office amounted to constructive dismissal.
• Whether or not the employee abandoned her job, justifying her termination.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the settled rule on the burden of proof in dismissal cases, which the Court states as follows:

The rule in a labor case is that the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.

This governs who must prove what once dismissal is alleged, and it frames the Court's review of the commission's findings.

On the standard for the extraordinary writ, the Court states:

Grave abuse of discretion is committed only when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner.

This defines the narrow lens through which the Court examines the commission's award.

On abandonment, the commission's ruling, quoted with approval in the decision, provides:

Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed from certain equivocal acts. Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.

This supplies the test for whether the employee intended to sever the employment relation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Judicial review of the commission's decisions by certiorari is confined to questions of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and the commission's conclusions fell within its authority.

On the second issue, the Court upholds the commission's finding of constructive dismissal. The commission held that a transfer is constructive dismissal when it is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial; when it involves demotion or diminution of salaries and benefits; or when the employer performs a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain that forecloses any choice but to give up employment. The burden was on the employer to show valid and legitimate grounds, and it failed. The transfer order invoked the exigency of the service, but no evidence showed an urgent need at Liloy, and no request came from that office. The order was temporary yet fixed no period, and the employee's pleas to return were met with silence, followed only by warnings for her absences. The Court therefore agreed that she was constructively dismissed.

On the third issue, the Court rejects abandonment. Her repeated requests to return to the main office negated any intention to sever the employment relation, and the later termination letter was a futile attempt to make her discharge legal.

Doctrine

A transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when it is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; when it involves demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits, and privileges; or when the employer commits a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain that forecloses any choice but to give up continued employment. The employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer rests on valid and legitimate grounds. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred from equivocal acts; mere absence, even after notice to return, is not abandonment. Certiorari against the labor commission lies only for want or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, meaning a judgment rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission finding the employee constructively dismissed and awarding separation pay or retirement benefits, backwages, and attorney's fees were upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the three-condition test for constructive dismissal by transfer, with the burden always on the employer to justify it. Examiners use this case to test management prerogative against constructive dismissal, and to test the narrow scope of certiorari against the labor commission.