I miss this girl. She served me well. For lack of a scanned actual digested reading, allow me to post a picture here. I took this shot a long time ago "Macon let's try this background, trial shot, be my model... no don't smile"
Speaking of labor, I had a business once. Rented this stall in a regular mall. I won’t say what type of business but it’s definitely not food. I had this secretary whose so young, around 21 or 22 years old. Reason why I took her is she’s so smart (though lacking in schooling), and, though petite she has this gorgeous mullato features, guys would sometimes line up.
One time I came by the store. 'Caught her telling off the security guards “Baket pinapapark nyo sa iba yung parking slot ng boss ko??” “Eh mam kase po..” Lol. “Macon inaway mo daw yung mga guards” “Eh kasi sir eh..” “Alam ko crush ka ng mga yan kahit ano sabihin mo sunod mga yan.. pero easy lang, nakapark naman ako eh” “Eh kasi naman sir eh..”
Speaking of labor, I had a business once. Rented this stall in a regular mall. I won’t say what type of business but it’s definitely not food. I had this secretary whose so young, around 21 or 22 years old. Reason why I took her is she’s so smart (though lacking in schooling), and, though petite she has this gorgeous mullato features, guys would sometimes line up.
One time I came by the store. 'Caught her telling off the security guards “Baket pinapapark nyo sa iba yung parking slot ng boss ko??” “Eh mam kase po..” Lol. “Macon inaway mo daw yung mga guards” “Eh kasi sir eh..” “Alam ko crush ka ng mga yan kahit ano sabihin mo sunod mga yan.. pero easy lang, nakapark naman ako eh” “Eh kasi naman sir eh..”
You know there are 4 types of young women in this country, have I told you that? 1. The young and smart and beautiful. 2. The young and smart and ah.. young 3. The young and beautiful.. and ehem.. young. And 4. is the young.. and young.. and ahh.. young. (Lol)
So every time men came to the studio-shop when I’m there they ask me “What can I choose from these variations?” I tell them “Oh everything... but the girl”
Here's the case:
Here's the case:
Petitioner Carolina Castillo was an employee of private respondent Philippine Commercial & International Bank (PCIB) Ermita branch since April 1981 as Foreign Remittance Clerk.
(So by position alone it’s deemed she’s one of the staff)
January 12, 1988, Faisal Al Shahab, a Jordanian national, went to PCIB Ermita branch to claim a foreign remittance in the amount of US$2,000.00. He paid P450.00 as commission charges as computed by Castillo. Upon re-computation, the correct amount of the charges amounted to onlyP248.75.
January 13, 1988 petitioner Castillo received a Memorandum from the branch manager reassigning her temporarily as Remittance Clerk-Inquiry.
(So this is a demoted assignment, having a disguise of “temporary". This simply means she’s expected to merely handle inquiries, and hands-off from all the processing papers temporarily, I wonder what the reason is)
So this pissed Castillo knowing she had been in effect dismissed from his current position and demoted to a lower non-staff position. And so this prompted her on January 21, 1988, to file with the NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal asking for her reinstatement as Foreign Remittance Clerk plus moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
Subsequently, petitioner received allegedly under protest, a Memorandum dated January 25, 1988 which accordingly, thereby instructing her further to desist from performing functions of other staff positions particularly those of the Remittance Clerk-POP/Collection Items.
(So there you go, the what should have been temporary now seemed to have been final)
On January 25, 1988, Shahab filed a formal complaint with the branch manager of the respondent bank regarding the over-charging of commission on foreign remittances, specifically mentioning petitioner as the one who attended to his withdrawals.The branch manager decided to pursue further investigation on the matter.
On February 2, 1988, the branch manager issued a Memo to petitioner requiring her to explain within seventy-two (72) hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her. Petitioner did not submit a written explanation.
(Yeah what the heck right? She has a pending case submitted in the office of the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal so fuck it)
And respondent bank deferred further action on the matter.
And so trial ensued in the case for illegal dismissal and on October 8, 1990, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ruling that petitioner was constructively dismissed from her employment when she was transferred to the position of Remittance Clerk-Inquiry from her position of Foreign Remittance Clerk.
The Labor Arbiter opined that while the positions of Foreign Remittance Clerk for Inquiry and Foreign Remittance Clerk for Payment Order Collection are within Level III of the position classification of the private respondent bank, the latter position is vested with more power and responsibilities, thus concluding that petitioner was demoted in her position.
As regards petitioners reassignment, the Labor Arbiter was of the view that although management has the right to control the nature of hiring, the status of the employee and his work assignment, such right must be anchored on just and valid grounds.
Pursuant to Section 12 of RA 6715 amending 223 (sic) of the Labor Code, respondent PCIB was ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her position as Foreign Remittance Clerk, Ermita Branch, or reinstate her in the payroll as mandated by the same law.
(Here comes the appeal)
On appeal, the NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision. It ruled that there was no demotion because the position to which she was being reassigned belongs to the same job level as her former position and both positions have the same rate of compensation.
Public respondent NLRC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment arguing that it is the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.
ISSUE:
Was there ILLEGAL DISMISSAL? Or Demotion in Rank?
RULING:
The petition is devoid of merit.
NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter.
Court ruled has ruled that petitioner claims that she was constructively dismissed. We agree with the respondent Commissions finding rejecting the same. Well-settled is the rule that it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business. An owner of a business enterprise is given considerable leeway in managing his business.
Our law recognizes certain rights collectively called MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE as inherent in the management of business enterprises. One of the prerogatives of management is the right to transfer employees in their work station. This Court has consistently recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.
The Court, as a rule, will not interfere with an employers prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment which includes among others, work assignment, working methods, and place and manner of work. The rule is well-settled that labor laws discourage interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of his business.
Of course, the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SUBTERFUGE BY THE EMPLOYER TO RID HIMSELF OF AN UNDESIRABLE WORKER.
In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds, and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Where the employer fails to overcome this BURDEN OF PROOF, the employees demotion shall no doubt be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.
So Castillo loses this case, her petition was dismissed. And the NLRC Decision reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling was affirmed.
