Philippine Veterans bank vs. NLRC and Martinez , G.R. 188882, March 30, 2010

In this case, PVB failed to discharge this burden. The combination of harsh actions by the bank rendered Magno’s employment condition hostile and unbearable.

First, PVB failed to show any urgency or genuine necessity to transfer Magno who showed the actual motive and the bad faith behind his transfer. The bank’s stated reason for his transfer for branch training because of his gross inefficiency cannot defeat Magno’s evidence since it was not able to prove that he had a record of gross inefficiency.

Second, Magno’s transfer is clearly unreasonable, inconvenient and oppressive since Magno and his family are residents of Dumaguete City. He was placed in the very difficult predicament of having to choose of living away from his family or bringing them to Manila which entails additional expenses.

Third, PVB failed to present any valid reason why it had to require Magno to go to the Head Office for branch training when it could just have required him to undertake the same training in the Vis-Min area.

And finally, there was nothing in the order of transfer as to what position Magno would occupy after his training thereby effectively placing him on a “floating status”. PVB’s allegation that he was assigned to a sensitive position is suspect considering that he was made to undergo branch training which is totally different from a position that entails reconciling of book entries of all branches which is essentially an accounting task.

This is another case of resignation amounting to constructive dismissal. In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer of an employee is for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity. The employer must be able to show that such transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to its employee. Failure to discharge this burden makes the employee’s transfer a constructive dismissal.

Based on these factual considerations, Magno was indeed constructively and illegally dismissed because of the hostile and unreasonable working conditions in the bank.

 The test applied here is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.