Case Digest

GERTRUDES DE LOS SANTOS, plaintiff-appellee,

v.
MAXIMO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-29192, 22 February 1971

FACTS

 Pelagia De la Cruz died intestate and without issue. 

 Subsequently, Gertrudes De los Santos (plantiff-appelle), who was the grandniece of
Pelagia, and several co-heirs, including Maximo De la Cruz (defendant-appellant), who
was the nephew of the deceased Pelagia, executed an extra judicial partition agreement
over the deceased estate.
 The parties agreed to adjudicate 3 lots to Maximo in addition to his corresponding share,
on condition that he would undertake the development and subdivision of the estate with
all expenses in connection therewith to be defrayed from the proceeds of the sale of the
said 3 lots. 
 However, despite demands of Gertrudes, other co-heirs, and residents of the subdivision,
Maximo failed to perform his aforesaid obligation although he had already sold the lots.
Thus, Gertrudes filed a complaint for specific performance. 
 Maximo answered that while he admits the due execution of the extra judicial partition,
Gertrudes had no cause of action against him because the said agreement was void as to
her, for she was not an heir of Pelagia, the deceased owner of the property. The lower
court ruled that Maximo, being a party to the extra judicial partition agreement, was
estopped from raising in issue the right of Gertrudes to inherit from Pelagia and hence he
must abide by its terms. 

 Allied Bank Corporation (ABC) hired Galanida as accountant book-keeper with

conditions that the Bank has right to transfer employees whenever public necessity
requires. Galanida every now and then got transferred and promoted.
 ABC sought his transfer to Bacolod. Galanida refused through a letter arguing that the
transfer would impede his family relationships in Cebu. Thereafter, Galanida filed a
complaint in the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.
  ABC transferred Galanida to Tagbiliran citing its Employee Discipline Policy and
Procedure which provides that refusal to transfer is insubordination and insubordination
is punishable by suspension to dismissal.
 Galanida retaliated in a letter asserting discrimination and favoritism practices by the
management. Bank Memo fired him.
 Labor arbiter issued a decision in favor of Galanida citing Dosch v. NLRC which
supposedly pens that “refusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered
insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that of being away
from the family.”
 National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed Labor Arbiter decision via
same Dosch case. CA affirmed the same.

Whether under the facts presented there is legal basis in petitioner's exercise of its management
prerogative.
Whether private respondent's violations of company rules constitute a ground to warrant the
penalty of dismissal.
Whether under the facts presented, there is legal basis to hold that allied bank afforded private
respondent the required due process.
Whether under the facts, there is legal basis to hold that private respondent cannot recover any
monetary award.[17]
Allied bank argues that the transfer of galanida was a valid exercise of its management
prerogative.