[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
419 views1 page

Best Wear vs. de Lemos Digest

The respondents, who were piece-rate sewers, claimed they were constructively dismissed when they were transferred to different sewing jobs. However, the court ruled that as piece-rate workers, their compensation depended on tasks completed rather than hours worked. Therefore, the transfer to different types of garments, as dictated by business needs, was a reasonable exercise of management prerogative absent evidence of bad faith. While labor rights are protected, management also has rights to make work assignments. As no discrimination was shown, the court declined to interfere with the valid exercise of management's authority to transfer employees.

Uploaded by

Brian Yui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
419 views1 page

Best Wear vs. de Lemos Digest

The respondents, who were piece-rate sewers, claimed they were constructively dismissed when they were transferred to different sewing jobs. However, the court ruled that as piece-rate workers, their compensation depended on tasks completed rather than hours worked. Therefore, the transfer to different types of garments, as dictated by business needs, was a reasonable exercise of management prerogative absent evidence of bad faith. While labor rights are protected, management also has rights to make work assignments. As no discrimination was shown, the court declined to interfere with the valid exercise of management's authority to transfer employees.

Uploaded by

Brian Yui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TOPIC: under piece-rate employment have no fixed salaries

“BUT MANAGEMENT RIGHTS LIKEWISE and their compensation is computed on the basis of
PROTECTED” accomplished tasks.

G.R. No. 191281 Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the
December 5, 2012 transfer was unreasonable, inconvenient or
BEST WEAR GARMENTS and/or WARREN PARDILLA prejudicial to the respondents. Such deployment of
vs. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS and CECILE M. sewers to work on different types of garments as
OCUBILLO, dictated by present business necessity is within the
ambit of management prerogative which, in the
FACTS: absence of bad faith, ill motive or discrimination,
Petitioner Best Wear Garments is a sole should not be interfered with by the courts.
proprietorship which hired respondents Cecile M.
Ocubillo and Adelaida B. De Lemos as sewers on The records are bereft of any showing of clear
piece-rate basis. discrimination, insensibility or disdain on the part of
petitioners in transferring respondents to perform a
De Lemos & Ocubillo filed a complaint for illegal different type of sewing job. It is unfair to charge
dismissal alleging that they were arbitrarily petitioners with constructive dismissal simply
transferred to other areas of operation of because the respondents insist that their transfer to
petitioner’s garments company, which amounted to a new work assignment was against their will.
constructive dismissal as it resulted in less earnings
for them. The constitutional policy of providing full protection
to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy
De Lemos claimed that the reason for her transfer management. While the Constitution is committed to
was her refusal "to render overtime work up to 7:00 the policy of social justice and the protection of the
p.m." On her part, Ocubillo alleged that her transfer working class, it should not be supposed that every
was precipitated by her having "incurred excessive labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor
absences since 2001." of labor. Management also has its rights which are
entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest
Petitioners denied having terminated the of simple fair play. Thus, where management
employment of respondents who supposedly prerogative to transfer employees is validly
committed numerous absences without leave exercised, as in this case, courts will decline to
(AWOL). It explained asserted that respondents are interfere.
piece-rate workers and hence they are not paid
according to the number of hours worked.

ISSUE:
Whether the transfer of the respondents to other
areas of operation amounted to constructive
dismissal?

RULING:
NO.

Being piece-rate workers assigned to individual


sewing machines, respondents’ earnings depended
on the quality and quantity of finished products. That
their work output might have been affected by the
change in their specific work assignments does not
necessarily imply that any resulting reduction in pay
is tantamount to constructive dismissal. Workers

You might also like