Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the Decision1 [Penned by Commissioner Rogelio I. Rayala and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto-Perez and Commissioner Domingo H. Zapanta, Annex "A" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 27-33.] and the Resolution2 [Annex "B" of the Petition, Id., p. 34.] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, dated October 20, 1993 and November 23, 1993, respectively, which affirmed the Decision3 [Penned by Labor Arbiter Oswald B. Lorenzo, NLRC Arbitration Branch-NCR Manila in Case No. NCR-00-08-04601-91, Annex "C" of the Petition, Id., pp. 36-42.] dated February 25, 1993 of the Labor Arbiter declaring that the transfer of assignment of private respondent Eden Legaspi as effected by petitioner OSS Security & Allied Services, Inc. was illegal tantamount to unjust dismissal.4 [Rollo, p. 37.]

The facts of the case are the following: Oldmiso

Private respondent worked as a Lady Security Guard of OSS Security Agency from June 16, 1985 to January 16, 1986. On January 17, 1986 petitioner acquired the assets and properties of OSS Security Agency and absorbed some of its personnel, including private respondent. As a Lady Security Guard she was assigned to render security services to the different clients of petitioner.5 [Annex "I" of the Petition, Id., p. 51.] She was last assigned at Vicente Madrigal Condominium II located in Ayala Avenue, Makati.6 [Annex "G" of the Petition, Id., p. 45.]

In a memorandum7 [Annex "E" of the Petition, Id., p. 43.] dated July 30, 1991 addressed to petitioner’s company President, retired General Honesto Isleta, the Building Administrator of VM Condominium II, Licerio E. Bugayong, complained of the laxity of the guards in enforcing security measures. The memorandum reads as follows:

In compliance therewith10 [On the bottom left side portion of the memorandum, Gen. Isleta wrote:

Eff/2 Aug. 91".], petitioner issued Duty Detail Order No. 0044611 [Annex "D" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 42-b.] on August 1, 1991 relieving private respondent and another lady security guard, Digna Suelan, of their assignment in VM Condominium II effective August 2, 1991 for reassignment to other units or detachments where vacancy exists. Ncmmis

On August 3, 1991, petitioner issued Duty Detail Order No. 0060112 [Annex "F" of the Petition, Id., p. 44.], which detailed private respondent to Minami International Corporation in Taytay, Rizal from August 3 to September 2, 1991 to replace Lady Security Guard Susan Tan who filed her vacation leave for August 1991. However, it appears that private respondent did not report for duty at her new assignment.13 [On the bottom left hand portion of Duty Detail Order No. 00601 Romeo U. Legaspi, Operations Officer wrote on August 4, 1991, "Subject LG did not report for duty eff this date".]

On August 6, 1991 private respondent filed her complaint14 [See Note No. 6, supra.] for underpayment and constructive dismissal. On February 25, 1993, Labor Arbiter Oswald B. Lorenzo rendered his decision upholding private respondent’s position and declared that private respondent’s transfer was not sanctioned by law, hence illegal and tantamount to unjust dismissal.15 [See Note No. 4, supra.] The decretal portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision reads:

Private respondent then appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the public respondent NLRC where it was assigned to the Second Division. In a Decision17 [See Note No. 1, supra.] dated October 20, 1993, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner sought for reconsideration of the said decision but the same was denied in a Resolution18 [See Note No. 2, supra.] dated November 23, 1993. Hence, this petition.

The NLRC out-and-out adopted the following findings of the Labor Arbiter: Sdaamiso

At issue, therefore, in the case at bench is whether public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming and embracing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that the transfer of assignment of private respondent by petitioner was illegal tantamount to unjust dismissal.20 [Id., p. 28.]

We answer in the affirmative. Sdaad

Service-oriented enterprises, such as petitioner’s business of providing security services, generally adhere to the business adage "the customer or client is always right". To satisfy the interests, conform to the needs, and cater to the whims and wishes of its clients, along with its zeal to gain substantial returns on its investments, employers adopt means designed towards these ends. These are called management prerogatives, in which the free will of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose, takes form. Accordingly, an employer can regulate, generally without restraint, according to its own discretion and judgment, every aspect of business.21 [Castillo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104319, June 17, 1999; Maya Farms Employees Organization v. NLRC, 239 SCRA 508, 514 (1994); National Federation of Labor Unions v. NLRC, 202 SCRA 346, 355 (1991).]

In the employment of personnel, the employer can prescribe the hiring, work assignments, working-methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work, subject only to limitations imposed by laws.22 [Consolidated Food Corporation v. NRLC, G.R. No. 118647, September 23, 1999; Arellano, Jr. v. NLRC, 278 SCRA 296, 302 (1997); Manila Electric Company v. NLRC, 263 SCRA 531, 538 (1996).]

Thus, the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the ambit of management prerogatives.23 [Escobin v. NLRC, 289 SCRA 48 (1998); Autobus Worker’s Union (AWU) v. NLRC, 291 SCRA 219, 229 (1998); Isabelo v. NLRC, 276 SCRA 141, 146 (1997).] However, a transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when the transfer is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and it involves a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges.24 [Garcia v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116568, September 3, 1999; Ledesma v. NLRC, 246 SCRA 47, 51 (1995).] In the case at bench, nowhere in the record does it show that that the transfer of private respondent was anything but done in good faith, without grave abuse of discretion, and in the best interest of the business enterprise. Scsdaad

First. No malice should be imputed from the fact that private respondent was relieved of her assignment and, a day later, assigned a new post. We must bear in mind that, unlike other contracts of service, the availability of assignment for security guards is primarily at heart subservient to the contracts entered into by the security agency with its client-third parties. As such, being sidelined temporarily is a standard stipulation in employment contracts.25 [Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NRLC, 295 SCRA 123, 131-132 (1998); Superstar Agency v. National Labor Relations Commission, 184 SCRA 74, 77 (1990); Agro Commercial Security Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 175 SCRA 790, 797 (1989).] When a security guard is placed "off detail" or on "floating" status, in security agency parlance, it means "waiting to be posted."26 [Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NRLC, supra.] Private respondent has not even been "off detail" for a week when she filed her complaint.

Second. Evidence is wanting to support the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that petitioner discriminated against private respondent when it ordered her relief and transfer of assignment. Petitioner proved that such transfer was effected in good faith to comply with the reasonable request27 [See Note No. 7, supra.] of its client, Madrigal Condominium Corproation Incorporated (MCCI), for a more disciplined service of the security guards on detail. The renewal of the contract of petitioner with MCCI hinged on the action taken by the former to the latter’s request.28 [Ibid.] Most contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the replacement of the guards assigned to it. Besides, a relief and transfer order in itself does not sever employment relationship between a security guard and her agency.29 [Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NRLC, supra.] Neither was the transfer for any ulterior design, such as to rid itself of an undesirable worker or to penalize an employee for his union activities and thereby defeat his right to self-organization.30 [Castillo v. NLRC, supra; Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129843, September 14, 1999.]Suprema

Third. It appears that private respondent declined the post assigned to her inasmuch as she considered it "a booby trap of crippling and dislocating [private respondent] from her employment".31 [Annex "K" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 69.] Private respondent lived in V. Mapa, Sta. Mesa, Manila,32 [See Note No. 6, supra.] and her new assigned post is in Taytay, Rizal, as against her previous post at VM Condominium II in Makati. Her new assigned post would entail changes in her routine, something that she was not agreeable with. But the mere fact that it would be inconvenient for her, as she has been assigned to VM Condominium II for a number of years, does not by itself make her transfer illegal.33 [Asis v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 379, 385 (1996).] Even private respondent admitted34 [See Note No. 5, supra.] that she was assigned to render security service to the different clients of petitioner. An employee has a right to security of tenure, but this does not give her such a vested right in her position as would deprive petitioner of its prerogative to change her assignment or transfer her where her service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the client.35 [Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121621, May 3, 1999; Tan v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 169, 180 (1998).] Thus, there was no basis to order reinstatement and back wages inasmuch as private respondent was not constructively dismissed. Neither is private respondent entitled to the award of money claims for underpayment, absent evidence to substantiate the same.

Finally, the public respondent erred when it failed to note the absence of any employer-employee relationship between private respondent and petitioners Juan Miguel M. Vasquez and Ma. Victoria M. Vasquez. Petitioner Juan Miguel M. Vasquez is the Project Manager of (MCCI) which owns and operates VM Condominium II, while petitioner Ma. Victoria Ma. Vasquez is the former’s sister and merely has her business office at VM Condominium II.36 [Petition, p. 2, Rollo, pp. 3-4.] Thus, no liability can be imposed on them. Juris

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Decision and Resolution of public respondent NLRC dated October 20, 1993 and November 23, 1993, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint dated August 6, 1991 filed by private respondent Eden Legaspi against petitioners is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena JJ., concur.