Beatrice C.

Melivo
Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security – G.R. No. 143604
Labor

FACTS:
Resin Industrial Chemical Corp. (RICC) is a company engaged in the
manufacture of industrial glue based in Misamis Oriental. It leased part of its property
compound to Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works Inc. (PICMW), its sister
company which operates a ship building and repair facility. The two companies enered
into separate service contracts with Amethyst Security for the detailing of security
guards. Their agreement included a condition that the security guards to be provided by
the company must be 25-45 years old. Upon renewal of the service contract on January
1998, the companies reminded the security agency of its age policy as stated in their
contract. In compliance, Amethyst directed all its security guards to submit copies of
their birth certificates. At that time, petitioners were over 45 years old. Thus, they
received Relief Orders, relieving them from their postings as security guards for RICC
and PICMW.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioner security guards were constructively
dismissed from employment. He also ruled that changing their assignments from security
guards to fire watch guards constituted demotion, which also involved a corresponding
diminution in pay.

ISSUE: Whether or not the termination of petitioners’ services by the respondents by

virtue of the contract of security services and the subsequent assignment as firewatch at
PICMW constitutes constructive dismissal

HELD: NO.

The condition imposed by the two companies as a principal of the contractor

Amethyst as a requirement of the security guards to be designated in its compound, is a
valid contractual stipulation. It is an inherent right of RICC/PICMW, as the principal or
client, to specify the qualifications of the guards who shall render service pursuant to a
service contract. It is reasonable the client to impose certain standards and require that
the contractor possess certain qualifications, conformably to the client’s needs.
Security of tenure, although provided in the Constitution, does not give an
employee an absolute vested right in a position as would deprive the company of its
prerogative to change their assignment or transfer them where they will be most useful.
When a transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor prejudicial to an employee;
and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of his pay, benefits, and other
privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal.
Jurisprudence recognizes the right to transfer or assign employees from one area
of operation to another, or one office to another or in pursuit of its legitimate business
interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other
privileges and not motivated by discrimination or made in bad faith, or effected as a form
of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This matter is a prerogative inherent
in the employer’s right to effectively control and manage the enterprise.