G.R. No. 149974 - Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corp. vs. Aguinaldo

On April 11, 1988, the Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) hired respondent Percival Aguinaldo as a security guard.
In 1993, respondent was promoted to Branch Head Guard while assigned at the Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) Santiago City Branch.

On November 13, 1998, roving personnel Ms. Remy Tumamao observed respondent without his headgear and smoking while on duty at FEBTC Santiago.
Respondent explained in a memorandum dated November 14, 1998 that he had not worn his perching cap because his hair was still wet due to rain, compounded by an emergency call regarding mechanical trouble with the branch’s armored car.
On November 23, 1998, PISAC issued a memorandum directing respondent to report to the FEBTC main office for investigation.
Subsequently, on November 24, 1998, a Relief Order was issued ordering respondent to report to PISAC’s head office for further clarification of his employment status.

On November 24, 1998, FEBTC Santiago Branch Head Antonio B. Banastas, Jr. recommended in a memorandum that respondent be retained at the same office, citing his long service and good performance.
Despite the recommendation for retention, PISAC, on December 2, 1998, denied the request and ordered respondent’s reassignment by directing him to report for reassignment at another branch.
Respondent was temporarily transferred to FEBTC Malabon City Branch pending the opening of a new branch in Santiago City, a move that was later characterized as an indefinite suspension without a clear date for reinstatement.

Feeling aggrieved by the reassignment, respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Labor Arbiter in Tuguegarao for illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay with damages.
On November 3, 1999, Executive Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez rendered a decision dismissing respondent’s complaint for lack of merit.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on March 29, 2000, holding that the indefinite suspension amounted to constructive dismissal, thereby entitling the respondent to reinstatement or separation pay and full backwages.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, and on August 29, 2000, the NLRC granted the motion by setting aside its earlier decision, thereby reinstating the dismissal ruling of November 3, 1999.
Respondent’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on December 7, 2000.
In response, respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition, holding that the reassignment to Malabon City constituted a constructive dismissal.
The Court emphasized that the transfer was unfair, oppressive, and prejudicial because it detached the respondent from his home locality in Santiago City, adversely affecting his family and economic situation.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, which was denied in a Resolution dated September 11, 2001, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the petitioner’s reassignment of the respondent from Santiago City to Malabon City constituted an exercise of management prerogative or amounted to constructive dismissal.

Was the transfer reasonable and substantiated by genuine business necessity?
Did the indefinite nature of the reassignment, with no clear assurance of reinstatement in Santiago City, effectively amount to an unlawful suspension?

Whether the disciplinary action, which included relieving the respondent from his post for a first offense, was justified given his explanation and previous record.

Whether the respondent’s petition for certiorari and subsequent filings raised an issue of forum-shopping in violation of procedural rules.