Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Julie's Bakeshop and - or Edgar Reyes vs. Henry Arnaiz, G.R. No. 173882, February 15, 2012

    Uploaded by

    1234567890
    The respondents filed complaints against petitioners for underpayment of wages and lack of benefits. In response, petitioners reassigned respondents to new positions as utility/security personnel. Respondents refused the new positions and did not report to work. The issue is whether this reassignment was constructive dismissal. The court ruled it was constructive dismissal because petitioners did not prove a valid reason for the transfer, such as business necessity, and the transfer appeared to be an act of retaliation for the complaints filed against petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Julie's Bakeshop and - or Edgar Reyes vs. Henry Arnaiz, G.R. No. 173882, February 15, 2012

    Uploaded by

    1234567890
    36 views1 page
    The respondents filed complaints against petitioners for underpayment of wages and lack of benefits. In response, petitioners reassigned respondents to new positions as utility/security personnel. Respondents refused the new positions and did not report to work. The issue is whether this reassignment was constructive dismissal. The court ruled it was constructive dismissal because petitioners did not prove a valid reason for the transfer, such as business necessity, and the transfer appeared to be an act of retaliation for the complaints filed against petitioners.

    Original Title

    Julie’s Bakeshop and_or Edgar Reyes vs. Henry Arnaiz, G.R. No. 173882, February 15, 2012 .docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondents filed complaints against petitioners for underpayment of wages and lack of benefits. In response, petitioners reassigned respondents to new positions as utility/security personnel. Respondents refused the new positions and did not report to work. The issue is whether this reassignment was constructive dismissal. The court ruled it was constructive dismissal because petitioners did not prove a valid reason for the transfer, such as business necessity, and the transfer appeared to be an act of retaliation for the complaints filed against petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Julie's Bakeshop and - or Edgar Reyes vs. Henry Arnaiz, G.R. No. 173882, February 15, 2012

    Uploaded by

    1234567890
    The respondents filed complaints against petitioners for underpayment of wages and lack of benefits. In response, petitioners reassigned respondents to new positions as utility/security personnel. Respondents refused the new positions and did not report to work. The issue is whether this reassignment was constructive dismissal. The court ruled it was constructive dismissal because petitioners did not prove a valid reason for the transfer, such as business necessity, and the transfer appeared to be an act of retaliation for the complaints filed against petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Julie’s Bakeshop and/or Edgar Reyes vs. Henry Arnaiz, G.R. No.

    173882, February 15,


    2012
    DEL CASTILLO, J.

    FACTS: Reyes hired respondents as chief bakers in his three franchise branches of Julie’s
    Bakeshop in Sibalom and San Jose, Antique. Respondents filed separate complaints against
    petitioners for underpayment of wages, payment of premium pay for holiday and rest day,
    service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, cost of living allowance (COLA) and
    attorney’s fees. These complaints were later on consolidated. Subsequently, in a
    memorandum dated February 16, 2000, Reyes reassigned respondents as utility/security
    personnel tasked to clean the outside vicinity of his bakeshops and to maintain peace and
    order in the area. Upon service of the memo, respondents, however, refused to sign the
    same and likewise refused to perform their new assignments by not reporting for work. In
    a letter-memorandum dated March 13, 2000, Reyes directed respondents to report back for
    work and to explain why they failed to assume their duties as utility/security personnel. A
    second letter-memorandum of the same tenor dated March 28, 2000 was also sent to
    respondents. Respondents did not heed both memoranda.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer/reassignment of respondents to another position


    without diminution in pay and other privileges tantamount to constructive dismissal.

    RULING: Yes. In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving
    that the transfer of an employee is for just or valid ground, such as genuine business
    necessity. The employer must demonstrate that the transfer is not unreasonable,
    inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee and that the transfer does not involve a
    demotion in rank or a diminution in salary and other benefits. “If the employer fails to
    overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer is tantamount to unlawful
    constructive dismissal.”

    Court finds no compelling reason to justify the transfer of respondents from chief bakers
    to utility/security personnel. What appears to this Court is that respondents’ transfer was
    an act of retaliation on the part of petitioners due to the former’s filing of complaints against
    them, and thus, was clearly made in bad faith. In fact, petitioner Reyes even admitted that
    he caused the reassignments due to the pending complaints filed against him.

    You might also like