Aguanza Vs Asian Terminal
Uploaded by
menforeverAguanza Vs Asian Terminal
Uploaded by
menforeverGUALBERTO AGUANZA vs.ASIAN TERMINAL, INC.
,
G.R. No. 163505
August 14, 2009
FACTS: Petitioner Gualberto Aguanza was employed with respondent company Asian Terminal, Inc. from April 15, 1989
to October 1997. He was initially employed as Derickman or Crane Operator and was assigned as such aboard Bismark
IV, a floating crane barge owned by Asian Terminals, Inc. based at the port of Manila. On October 20, 1997, respondent
James Keith issued a memo to the crew of Bismark IV stating that the barge had been permanently transferred to the
Mariveles Grains terminal beginning October 1, 1997 and because of that, its crew would no longer be entitled to out of
port benefits of 16 hours overtime and P200 a day allowance.
[Aguanza], with four other members of the crew, stated that they did not object to the transfer of Bismark IV to
Mariveles, Bataan, but they objected to the reduction of their benefits. Eventually, the other members of the crew of
Bismark IV accepted the transfer and it was only [Aguanza] who refused the transfer. [Aguanza] insisted on reporting to
work in Manila although his barge, Bismark IV, and its other crew were already permanently based in Mariveles, Bataan.
[Aguanza] was not allowed to time in in Manila because his work was in Mariveles, Bataan. When his request was not
granted he filed a case of illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter which ruled in his favor, stating that ATI violated the
rule against diminution of benefits. The NLRC, however, reversed the LAs decision and held that Aguanzas insistence to
be paid out-of-town benefits, despite the fact that the crane to which he was assigned was already permanently based
outside Metro Manila, was unreasonable. The CA sustained the decision of the NLRC.
1. Whether or not Aguanzas transfer constituted constructive dismissal.
NO. ATIs transfer of Bismark IVs base from Manila to Bataan was, contrary to Aguanzas assertions, a valid exercise of
management prerogative. The transfer of employees has been traditionally among the acts identified as a management
prerogative subject only to limitations found in law, collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of fair play
and justice. 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.9
On the other hand, the transfer of an employee may constitute constructive dismissal "when continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee."10
Aguanzas continued employment was not impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; neither was there a clear discrimination
against him. Among the employees assigned to Bismark IV, it was only Aguanza who did not report for work in Bataan.
Aguanzas assertion that he was not allowed to "time in" in Manila should be taken on its face: Aguanza reported for
work in Manila, where he wanted to work, and not in Bataan, where he was supposed to work. There was no demotion
in rank, as Aguanza would continue his work as Crane Operator. Furthermore, despite Aguanzas assertions, there was
no diminution in pay.
When Bismark IV was based in the port of Manila, Aguanza received basic salary, meal allowance, and fixed overtime
pay of 16 hours and per diem allowance when the barge was assigned outside of Manila. The last two items were given
to Aguanza upon the condition that Bismark IV was assigned outside of Manila. Aguanza was not entitled to the fixed
overtime pay and additional allowances when Bismark IV was in Manila.
