[G.R.
No. 152193. May 29, 2002]
TAAS vs.
UST, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated 29 MAY
2002.
G.R. No. 152193 (Teresa Taas
vs. University of Sto. Tomas, et al.)
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP
No. 58662 dated May 31, 2001 which affirmed in toto the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission which in turn affirmed the resolution of
the Labor Arbiter dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal constructive
dismissal against respondent school.
Petitioner was hired by the University of Sto. Tomas in 1977 as a high
school teacher. In 1984, she became a regular faculty member. Starting the
school year 1997-1998, numerous complaints against petitioner were received by
Mr. Mariano Carpio, principal of the high school department. These complaints
include (1) absences and tardiness; (2) poor teaching methods; (3) being
inconsiderate of her students; (4) using foul language when referring to her
students; (5) thoughtlessness; (6) negligence in filling up report cards; and
(7) mistakes in grading her students. Petitioner was duly notified of all these
complaints as evidenced by the letters from Mr. Carpio dated June 3, 1997; June
30, 1997; September 11, 1997; October 21, 1997; December 12, 1997; February 8,
1998; and March 24, 1998 requiring petitioner to explain the complaints against
her.
At the start of the school year 1998-1999, the School Council informed
petitioner that she would be given a new work assignment to review and evaluate
history books equivalent to a teaching load.
On June 5, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal constructive
dismissal against respondents. She claimed that her re-assignment was due to an
intra union dispute between her and a co-teacher. Petitioner argued that
her removal from the teaching post diminished her status in the academic
community.
Respondent denied the claim of constructive dismissal because petitioner
continuously reported for work and received her salary. It also claimed that
the act of giving petitioner a new assignment was a valid exercise of
management prerogative.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit.[1] This was affirmed on appeal by the National
Labor Relations Commission on August 30, 1999.
On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld both the NLRC and the
Arbiter’s dismissals. Hence, this petition.
The petition must be denied for failure of petitioner to show any
reversible error in the assailed decision. The right to transfer employees is
the employer’s prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its
employee’s qualification, aptitude and competence.[2] In this case, respondent was able to prove
that petitioner’s re-assignment was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Petitioner was ineffective as a
classroom teacher inasmuch as numerous complaints were lodged against
her by the students and her co-faculty which thus justified respondent’s
exercise of its prerogative to transfer petitioner from classroom teaching to
an equivalent assignment. Respondent’s claim of constructive dismissal was also
belied by the fact that there was no diminution in her salaries and benefits,
nor a demotion in her rank.
More importantly, it should be pointed out that constructive dismissal
is an involuntary resignation or a quitting resorted to when continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility
or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.[3]
In the present case, petitioner has not resigned at all and has continued her
employment with respondent with the same rank and receiving the same salaries
and benefits; hence her complaint for illegal constructive dismissal against
respondents must be dismissed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Very
truly yours,
(Sgd.)
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court