G.R. No. 172724 - Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. vs. Albayda, Jr.

Respondent Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr. began working for Upjohn, Inc. in 1978 and continued until 1996 when Pharmacia and Upjohn merged.
After the merger, he was designated District Sales Manager for District XI (Western Visayas) and settled in Bacolod City.
On August 9, 1999, a district meeting discussed territorial configuration for 2000 marketing strategy.
In December 1999, respondent received a memorandum reassigning him as District Sales Manager for District XII (Northern Mindanao, including Cagayan de Oro City).

Respondent sent a December 27, 1999 letter to Felicito M. Garcia, Pharmacia’s Vice-President for Sales and Marketing, expressing concerns about the reassignment due to unfamiliarity with the territory, family dislocation, and suspicion it was a pretext for dismissal.
On January 10, 2000, Garcia denied reassignment request, citing business need and personnel development, and noting similar past relocations.
Respondent wrote to Aleda Chu, National Sales and External Business Manager, reiterating refusal, citing loss of family income and personal inconveniences, and alleging the transfer was a dismissal tactic.
Chu denied making assurances against transfer, emphasized business reasons for transfer, noted poor district performance in 1999, and cited respondent’s long tenure in Western Visayas as a reason for exposing him to new challenges.
Respondent continued to oppose transfer, likening it to punishment and maintaining objections on family and financial grounds.

On May 11, 2000, respondent was notified he exhausted sick leave credits and was on indefinite sick leave without pay.
On May 17, 2000, respondent declared fit for work and ready to assume assignment in Western Visayas.
Chu expressed disappointment over respondent’s refusal to accept transfer despite being fit to work, and referred case to Human Resources.
Montilla, Human Resource Manager, denied respondent’s request to remain in Western Visayas citing no vacancy, offered placement in Metro Manila, and gave deadline to decide.
Respondent reiterated objections; Montilla directed respondent to report to Makati office and warned of termination for AWOL if he failed to comply.
On July 13, 2000, respondent’s services were terminated due to repeated refusal to report for work, citing AWOL and insubordination under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

Respondent filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City, against Pharmacia and relevant officials.
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on July 12, 2002.
NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter’s decision on July 26, 2004; Motion for Reconsideration denied on November 10, 2004.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and set aside the NLRC rulings on November 30, 2005, and remanded the case for proper determination.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which CA denied on May 5, 2006.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of CA ruling.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing or setting aside the factual and legal findings of the NLRC, which were based on substantial evidence.
Whether the reassignment of respondent was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Whether respondent’s dismissal was for just cause.
Whether due process was observed in respondent’s dismissal.
Whether respondent is entitled to separation pay despite dismissal for cause.