Philippine Association of Service Exporters

vs Drilon GR 81958 30 June 1988

Facts: DOLE enacted Department Order No 1, outlining guidelines of temporary suspension
deployment of female domestic workers. Philippine Association of Service Exporters, engaged
in the recruitment of overseas workers assailed the validity of the said order. They contend that
this is discriminatory against female domestic workers and does not apply to all Filipino workers
but to domestic helpers only.

Issue: Whether or not DO No 1 violates equal protection on the ground of sexual discrimination?

Decision: Petition dismissed. The Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our
female labor force abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions
marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal abuse. The same cannot be said of our male
workers. It is the avowed objective of DO No 1 to “enhance the protection for Filipino female
overseas workers” this Court has no quarrel that in the midst of the terrible mistreatment Filipina
workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment will be for their own good and welfare. The
Court finds the impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female domestic overseas workers.
That it does not apply to “all Filipina workers” is not an argument for unconstitutionality. Had
the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have been unreasonable and arbitrary.
Not all of them are similarly circumstanced. What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of
a select person or group of persons within an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or
group or resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons.

G.R. No. 106107 June 2, 1994

AGUSTIN CHU, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY,
INC. respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner retired from the service of private respondent upon reaching the age of sixty
under its regular retirement program. He was granted an extention of service by the
Board of Directors of private respondent under a "Special Contract of Employment." The
contract provided, inter alia, that its term was for a period of one year. Petitioner was
employed as Head of the Warehousing, Sugar, Shipping and Marine Department.
Private respondent issued two Memorandums, both providing for a rotation of the
personnel and other organizational changes. Pursuant to the memoranda, petitioner
was transferred to the Sugar Sales Department. Petitioner protested his transfer and
requested a reconsideration
but was denied. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
contending that he was constructively dismissed from his employment.
The Labor Arbiter said that petitioner’s transfer was without change in rank or salary;
petitioner’s designation in either department was the same; the personnel rotation was
pursuant to organizational changes done in the valid exercise of management
prerogatives; there was no bad faith in the transfer of petitioner, as other employees
similarly situated as he were likewise affected; and petitioner failed to show that he was
prejudiced by the changes or transferred to a demeaning or humiliating position.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC
also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner contends that there was no valid exercise of management prerogative
because said transfer was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to him. Petitioner
argues that private respondent’s prerogative to transfer him was limited by the "Special
Contract of Employment," which was the "law" between the parties.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed from his employment.

HELD:
No. An owner of a business enterprise is given considerable leeway in managing his
business because it is deemed important to society as a whole that he should succeed.
Our law, therefore, recognizes certain rights as inherent in the management of business
enterprises. These rights are collectively called management prerogatives or acts by
which one directing a business is able to control the variables thereof so as to enhance
the chances of making a profit. "Together, they may be taken as the freedom to
administer the affairs of a business enterprise such that the costs of running it would be
below the expected earnings or receipts. In short, the elbow room in the quest for
profits". One of the prerogatives of management, and a very important one at that, is the
right to transfer employees in their work station.
It is the employer’s prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its
employees’ qualifications, aptitudes, and competence to move them around in the
various areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will function
with maximum benefit to the company.
An employee’s right to security of tenure does not give him such a vested right in his position as
would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where
he will be most useful. When his transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor prejudicial
to him, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits, and
other privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal.
This is a function associated with the employer’s inherent right to control and manage effectively
its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the
right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of
management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.
Petitioner’s bare assertion that the transfer was unreasonable and caused him inconvenience
cannot override the fact, as found by the Labor Arbiter and respondent Commission, that the
rotation was made in good faith and was not discriminatory, and that there was no demotion in
rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits and privileges.