Tolentino was initially suspended from work for a month by Jarcia Machine Shop for an unauthorized absence. When he tried to reason with his employer, his employment was terminated. Jarcia then told Tolentino he was being transferred to a construction job, which he refused as it was unrelated to his current role. Tolentino filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The labor arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Tolentino's favor, finding his dismissal to be illegal as he was not given a chance to refute the transfer. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.

1. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
G.R. No. 118045
January 2, 1997
JARCIA MACHINE SHOP and AUTO SUPPLY, INC, Petitioner,
VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AGAPITO
T. TOLENTINO, Respondents.
Facts: Tolentino, on 12 January 1993, was initially suspended from work for a month after he incurred an
unauthorized absence the previous day. But when he tried to reason out, Tolentino’s employment was
terminated. Two days later, petitioner informed him that he was just being transferred to petitioner’s
construction business to perform the job of transporting filling construction materials. When Tolentino
refused, claiming that it was not related to his current job, he received invectives and humiliating words
from petitioner. Thus, Tolentino left the shop premises as told and filed this illegal dismissal case against
Jarcia. On 14 January 1993, Tolentino filed an illegal dismissal complaint against Jarcia with prayer for
backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees. The labor arbiter
grants Tolentino’s claims, but Jacia filed an “Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
Admit Position Paper”. The motion was forwarded to NLRC and was treated as an appeal. November
23, 1993 NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. Decemebr 27, 1993, Jarcia filed with the
NLRC a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. Jarcia filed a special civil action of certiorari,
alleging that NLRC commited grave abuse of discretion.
Jarcia presented documents DTR’s that shows Tolentino’s propensity to absence, tardiness and
work undertime and justifying the reassignment as a means of probation. The Daily time Records
shown by Jarcia as evidence was questionable and doubtful.
Issue: Whether or not the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion
Ruling: No, there is no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC. Failure to see any
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of NLRC in upholding the
labor arbiter's decision which declared Tolentino's transfer as a constructive illegal dismissal.
Tolentino was not given an opportunity to refute the employer's grounds or reasons for said
transfer and demotion. Since petitioner failed to comply with the legal requirements for the valid
dismissal of an employee, Tolentino’s constructive dismissal is rendered illegal. The award of
backwager must, therefore, be upheld