G.R. No. 189082 - Ruiz vs. Wendel Osaka Realty Corp.

Petitioner Josephine Ruiz was hired on February 1, 1982, as secretary to respondent Delfin J. Wenceslao, Jr., president of DMWAI.
After a few years of service, petitioner expressed her intention to resign due to difficulties getting along with co-workers.
Instead of accepting her resignation, Delfin decided to transfer her, and on November 1, 1989, she was appointed as executive assistant to the president of WORC, making her the sole employee of that branch.
WORC was engaged exclusively in the Ciudad Nuevo reclamation project in Cavite City.

In August 2001, petitioner was reportedly promoted to Office Manager of DMWAI.
On October 21, 2002, she was assigned to participate in a task force for the marketing campaign of the Ciudad Nuevo Project.
In 2002, the BIR alerted Delfin regarding tax deficiency allegations against his companies, which were allegedly based on the companies’ own records.
During an internal review spurred by the BIR’s notice, Delfin discovered that several important company files of DMWAI were missing.
Respondents asserted that a woman, later identified as Mrs. Miguela S. Sunico (wife of a former DMWAI employee and current BIR officer), reported that company files were found in her possession, having allegedly been given to her by petitioner.
To ascertain who was responsible for the missing files, Delfin required all 15 employees with access to these documents to answer a questionnaire; 14 complied while petitioner failed to submit hers promptly.

Petitioner claimed she wished to discuss the matter with Delfin prior to submission, asserting the questionnaire was tantamount to an admission of wrongdoing if filled.
Delfin maintained that her refusal to complete the questionnaire signified an acknowledgment of misconduct.

On December 3, 2002, Delfin sent a letter to petitioner placing her under a 30-day preventive suspension, citing her failure to answer the questionnaire as indicative of her involvement in the unauthorized taking of company files.

In the letter, Delfin warned that her non-compliance constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal for cause.
Petitioner refused to accept the letter upon service.

On December 9, 2002, petitioner eventually submitted a questionnaire that she had filled, albeit with delay.
On December 10, 2002, petitioner filed an illegal suspension case before the Labor Arbiter, also later amending her complaint to include claims of constructive illegal dismissal, non-payment of benefits (proportionate 13th month pay, confidential allowance, separation pay), as well as damages and attorney’s fees.
Investigative proceedings were ongoing during this period:

A panel of investigators was convened.
On January 2, 2003, petitioner was informed via a letter by investigator Andrew M. Taningco that she was to be placed on a 15-day vacation leave with pay pending the resolution of the investigation.
Petitioner received and responded to the Sworn Statement of Mrs. Sunico, denying the allegations.

On January 18, 2003, petitioner’s vacation leave ended and she was instructed to report for work, at which time she was reassigned to WORC’s Ciudad Nuevo Project in Cavite City.
Petitioner, living in Bulacan, expressed in a letter her concerns regarding the transfer, citing travel hardships, humiliation, and inadequate benefits.
She continued working in Cavite until April 15, 2003, when she resigned, attributing her resignation to poor health and workplace humiliation.

In the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated March 31, 2004, petitioner was found not to have been illegally dismissed, but she was granted her monetary claim for pro-rata 13th month pay for 2003.
On May 3, 2004, petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with the NLRC.
In its July 11, 2007 Decision, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, directing respondents to pay separation pay and full back wages.
Respondents’ subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
The Court of Appeals later granted respondents’ petition, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s original Decision.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 challenging the reassignment as constituting constructive dismissal.

Petitioner argued that her transfer to Cavite was unjustified, being solely motivated by suspicion that she had taken company files.
She claimed the transfer demoted her from a managerial to a clerical position.
Additional grievances included:

The transfer was executed without valid business necessity.
The reassignment was intended to humiliate her, as evidenced by the reduction in tasks given.
There was a reduction or withdrawal of benefits previously granted—specifically, a confidential allowance.
The transfer imposed severe inconveniences (such as extended travel from Bulacan to Cavite) that adversely affected her health.

The transfer was part of a legitimate management prerogative to protect company interests during an ongoing investigation.
As petitioner held a sensitive position, losing the employer’s trust warranted her reassignment.
Despite the transfer, petitioner continued performing duties similar to those in her original location, including assisting with the Ciudad Nuevo Project.
The change in benefits was adjusted in accordance with her new position, even providing a traveling allowance superior to her previous confidential allowance.
The action of reassigning her was justified by substantial evidence indicating her breach of trust and confidence.

The respondents also refuted the claim of constructive dismissal by arguing that petitioner voluntarily resigned once reassigned, instead of being terminated by the employer.

Whether the transfer of petitioner from Quezon City to Cavite City was a legitimate exercise of management’s prerogative.
Whether the transfer was based on substantial evidence of misconduct related to the alleged taking of company files.
Whether such transfer was executed in good faith and for legitimate business interests.

Whether the reassignment, coupled with alleged demotion and reduction in benefits, amounted to a constructive dismissal.
Whether the conditions imposed on petitioner—such as extended travel and altered work duties—rendered her work environment intolerable.

Whether petitioner’s failure to immediately submit the questionnaire, as required by the employer, undermined her credibility.
Whether the evidence, including the testimony of Mrs. Sunico and statements from other employees, was sufficient to justify the preventive suspension and transfer.

Whether respondent Delfin, as an individual, could be held jointly and severally liable along with the respondent corporations for the alleged wrongful act (i.e., “dilution of the identity employer”).