Management Prerogative to Transfer Employee Security Guards

Is transfer of a security guard equivalent dismissal?

No. In cases involving security guards, a relief and transfer order in itself does not sever employment relationship between a security guard and his agency. An employee has the right to security of tenure, but this 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 his service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the client. (G.R. No. 160940)

Can the agency transfer its security guard?

Yes. The right to transfer employees from one office to another- provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges- is judicially recognized as a prerogative inherent in the employer's right to effectively control and manage the enterprise. (G.R. No. 118159)

To repeat for emphasis, the security guard's right to security of tenure does not give him a vested right to the position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change the assignment of, or transfer the security guard to, a station where his services would be most beneficial to the client. Indeed, an employer has the right to transfer or assign its employee from one office to area of operation to another, or in pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no diminution in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment ot demotion without sufficient cause.

Is the lapse of 6 month off-detailed period equivalent to constructive illegal dismissal?

No. It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of six month period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal, without looking into the peculiar circumstances hat resulted in he security guard's failure to assume another post. (G.R. No. 198538)  

AN EMPLOYEE WHO TENDERED RESIGNATION LETTER CANNOT CLAIM TO BE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

The act of resignation is a voluntary act of relinquishment of one’s employment. Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, a flight attendant tendered her resignation but later on filed an illegal dismissal case contending that she was forced to resign. In dismissing the complaint, the court considered that:

1.  The resignation letter was handwritten
2. The complainant was of sufficient age and discretion, could read, write, and understand English
3. There is no proof of any material or physical force applied on her person or family
4.  Voluntary executed a quit claim
5. Received generous financial benefits without protest
6. It took one year to file illegal dismissal

Further, the court ruled that the resignation letter and undertaking that evidenced her receipt of separation pay, when taken together with her educational attainment and the circumstances surrounding the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal, comprise substantial proof of voluntary resignation.

The words used in the resignation letter showing appreciation and gratitude towards the employer, negates the notion of being forced and coerced to resign. The complainant is no ordinary employee who may not be able to completely comprehend and realize the consequences of her acts. She is an educated individual. It is highly improbable that with her long years in the profession and her educational attainment, she could be tricked and forced into doing something she does not intend to do.

It must be remembered that for intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the intimidation caused the consent to be given (2) that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful (3) that the threat be real or serious, there being evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to do as the lesser evil (4) and that it produces a well grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has necessary means or ability to inflict the threatened injury to his person or property. In this cas, there is no proof to the existence of any of the essential elements. Bare and self-serving allegations of coercion or intimidation, unsubstantiated by evidence, do not constitute proof to sufficiently support a finding of forced resignation.

Moreover, not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. There are legitimate waivers and quitclaims that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of workers which must be respected by the courts as the law between parties.

G.R. No. 183915, December 2011