Tierra International Const. Corp vs NLRC : 101825 : April 2, 1996 : J... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/101825.htm EMPLOYEE shall be utilized by EMPLOYER to perform work in the classification above at the location of the project. There is no representation nor guarantee that the EMPLOYEE will be employed on any particular work or job, EMPLOYER having the right to assign EMPLOYEE to some other type of work for which he might be capable. Paragraph XIII (b) (1): Termination for cause: (1) Notwithstanding any other terms and conditions of this Agreement, EMPLOYER may, at his sole discretion, terminate EMPLOYEES services for cause at any time. Termination for CAUSE shall include but not limited to the following: Lack of ability of EMPLOYEE to perform in the classification for which hired . . . failure or refusal to work or comply with EMPLOYERs working rules; . The NLRCs mistake was in attributing to the POEA, rather than to petitioners the claim that the dismissal of private respondents was justified on the basis of these provisions of the employment contract. But the mistake may be overlooked because the fact is that the POEA sustained petitioners claim or allegation based on these provisions of the contract. There is therefore basis for the finding of the NLRC that private respondents had been required to dig canals, make excavations, and haul construction materials. It is not disputed that to make them do this would be to require them to do work not connected to their employment as transit mixer, truck driver and batch operator. They were therefore fully justified in refusing to do the assignment. The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment is recognized. Let there be no doubt about this. This right, aptly called management prerogative, gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work.3 But the exercise of this right must be in keeping with good faith and not be used as a pretext for defeating the rights of employees under the laws and applicable contracts.4 Petitioners assert that private respondents were dismissed because they refused to go back to work and instead opted for repatriation. According to the report of the companys Site Administration Officer, private respondents were given three options: (1) to go back to work; (2) to apologize to their supervisor; and (3) to be repatriated. What private respondents were given were not really options. They were given the choice of apologizing for their refusal to work and then resume working as ordered, or else, resign and be sent back home. Under the circumstances they really had no choice but to resign. It was not pride or arrogance which made them refuse to work as ordered, but the assertion of their right not to be made to work Outside of what they had been hired to do. For asserting their right, private respondents should not be punished. We, therefore, hold that private respondents dismissal was illegal and that for this reason they are entitled to be paid their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment contract,5 in addition to their unpaid salaries prior to their dismissal, as found by both the POEA and the NLRC. WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Regalado (Chairman), Romero, and Puno, JJ., concur. Torres, Jr., is on leave. 4 of 5 1/20/2016 9:05 PM