Title
Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corp. vs. Aguinaldo
Case
G.R. No. 149974
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2005
Aguinaldo, a security guard, was reassigned to Malabon City after a minor infraction. The Supreme Court ruled the transfer unreasonable and prejudicial, constituting constructive dismissal, ordering reinstatement with backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149974)

Background of Employment

Aguinaldo began his employment with PISAC as a security guard on April 11, 1988, later being promoted to Branch Head Guard at the Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) Santiago City Branch. His tenure was marked by a complaint involving a breach of company policy on November 13, 1998, when he was found without proper headgear and smoking while on duty. Aguinaldo's explanation for this incident was documented in a Memorandum dated November 14, 1998, following which the employer initiated an investigation.

Reassignment and Complaints

On November 23, 1998, PISAC directed Aguinaldo to report to the FEBTC main office in Malabon City for further inquiry, followed by a Relief Order on November 24, switching him from his post in Santiago City. Subsequently, Aguinaldo was temporarily reassigned while awaiting the opening of another security branch in Santiago City. This prompted Aguinaldo to file a complaint with the Office of the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay.

Labor Arbiter Decision and NLRC Appeal

On November 3, 1999, the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed Aguinaldo’s complaint, which was subsequently reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on March 29, 2000. The NLRC determined that Aguinaldo's reassignment lacked legal standing, equating it to an indefinite suspension, hence ruling in Aguinaldo's favor.

Motion for Reconsideration and NLRC Reinstatement

In an unexpected turn, PISAC's motion for reconsideration was granted on August 29, 2000, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s original decision that had dismissed Aguinaldo's case. Aguinaldo's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC, leading him to seek relief from the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Findings

On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aguinaldo, emphasizing that his reassignment constituted constructive dismissal. The decision highlighted that the reassignment to a position that was not yet operational hindered Aguinaldo’s continued employment, reflecting potential demotion and inconvenience.

Issues on Petition and Management Prerogative

The primary issue tendered by PISAC was the nature of Aguinaldo’s reassignment and its legality. The petitioner argued that the reassignment was a valid management prerogative and merely temporary. However, Aguinaldo and the Solicitor General contended that the nature of his reassignment was unjustifiably oppressive and indicative of constructive dismissal, as dictated by precedent.

Burden of Proof and Final Ruling

The burden of proof lay with PISAC to demonstrate that the reassignmen

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.