Dear Atty. Vlad,

I am employed as a Medical Representative in a Pharma Company. In my employment contract, one of the conditions is that during my employment as a Medical Representative, I can be transferred to any part of the Philippines. I am assigned in Malolos, Bulacan. My wife runs a business in Malolos, Bulacan and our five-year-old son is under my and my wife’s direct care. Two weeks ago, our National Sales Manager (“NSM”) issued to me a memorandum, advising me of my transfer to Laguna Province. I told my NSM that I cannot follow the directive since it will greatly affect my family, especially so that my work will be far from my son. Despite this, my NSM still proceeded with my transfer. Can my NSM lawfully do this? I hope you can help me.

Francis

***

Dear Francis,

From what you shared to me, you were employed as a Medical Representative and one of the stipulations in your Employment Contract, which you have agreed to, is that you may be assigned to any part of the Philippines.

In the case of Pharmacia and Up John, Inc. (now Pfizer Philippines, Inc.), et al. vs Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr., G.R. 172724, 23 August 2010, the Supreme Court stated:

In addition, this Court cannot agree with the findings of the CA that the transfer of respondent was unreasonable, considering he had not been remiss in his responsibilities. What the CA failed to recognize is that the very nature of a sales man is that it is mobile and ambulant. On this point, it bears to stress that respondent signed two documents signifying his assent to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines. In respondent’s Employment Application,46 he checked the box which asks, “Are you willing to be relocated anywhere in the Philippines?” In addition, in respondent’s Contract of Employment, item (8) reads:

You agree, during the period of your employment, to be assigned to any work or workplace for such period as may be determined by the company and whenever the operations thereof require such assignment.

Even if respondent has been performing his duties well it does not mean that petitioners’ hands are tied up that they can no longer reassign respondent to another territory. And it is precisely because of respondent’s good performance that petitioners want him to be reassigned to Cagayan de Oro City so that he could improve their business there.

In Abbott Laboratories (Phils.) Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, which involved a complaint filed by a medical representative against his employer drug company for illegal dismissal for allegedly terminating his employment when he refused to accept his reassignment to a new area, the Court upheld the right of the drug company to transfer or reassign its employee in accordance with its operational demands and requirements. The ruling of the Court therein, quoted hereunder, also finds application in the instant case:

Therefore, Bobadilla had no valid reason to disobey the order of transfer. He had tacitly given his consent thereto when he acceded to the petitioners’ policy of hiring sales staff who are willing to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines which is demanded by petitioners’ business.

By the very nature of his employment, a drug salesman or medical representative is expected to travel. He should anticipate reassignment according to the demands of their business. It would be a poor drug corporation which cannot even assign its representatives or detail men to new markets calling for opening or expansion or to areas where the need for pushing its products is great. More so if such reassignments are part of the employment contract.

Considering that you were employed as a Medical Representative, who agreed to be transferred to any part of the Philippines, you may not lawfully disobey your NSM. By the very nature of your employment as a Medical Representative or a salesman, you are expected to travel and should anticipate reassignments according to the demands of the business of your employer.

I hope that I was able to assist you based on the facts that you have shared to me.

Atty. Vlad del Rosario