G.R. No. 92673 - Cortez vs. Civil Service Commission

Telephilippines, Inc. (TP), a corporation engaged in providing contact center services, is the petitioner.
Ferrando H. Jacolbe, a customer service representative (CSR) hired in 2007, is the respondent.

TP assigned Jacolbe to its Priceline account in May 2009.
A key performance metric for CSRs was the Average Handle Time (AHT) with a target of 7.0 minutes or less per call.
The AHT is computed as (Average Talk Time + Hold Time) divided by the Number of Calls and monitored daily and weekly.

On January 22, 2013, an Incident Report was issued by Jacolbe’s supervisor for failing to meet the 7-minute AHT target during the third week of January 2013.
Records confirm that Jacolbe had failed to meet the AHT target on two previous occasions (January 5 and 12, 2013).
Jacolbe was placed under a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to address his inefficiency.

TP’s Human Resources Department issued a Notice to Explain on February 13, 2013, stating that his work performance over the last six months was unsatisfactory.
The Notice to Explain directed Jacolbe to submit a written explanation to avoid disciplinary action.
Jacolbe complied by submitting letters on February 19 and 25, 2013, defending his actions by asserting that he had never intentionally disconnected calls to meet the AHT target.

Unsatisfied with his explanation, TP issued a Notice of Termination on March 18, 2013, citing his consistent failure to meet the prescribed performance metrics under its Code of Conduct and Zero Tolerance Policy.
Jacolbe filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims, arguing that isolated incidents did not amount to gross misconduct, especially in light of his Top Agent award in December 2012.
The Labor Arbiter (LA), in a decision dated November 25, 2013, found the dismissal illegal, awarding backwages and other damages to Jacolbe.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in its decision dated March 31, 2014, reversed the LA ruling on the basis that Jacolbe consistently failed to meet the 7-minute AHT target, justifying the dismissal.
The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC ruling in its September 8, 2016 decision by concluding that meeting the AHT metric was merely one factor in performance evaluation and noting conflicting evidence such as Jacolbe’s Top Agent award.
After denying a reconsideration resolution dated August 7, 2017, the matter was elevated via a petition for certiorari.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the NLRC ruling that validated Jacolbe’s dismissal.

Was TP’s decision to dismiss Jacolbe for failing to meet the 7-minute AHT metric, sustained over a prolonged period, sufficient to establish gross inefficiency and justify termination?
Does the evidence, including Jacolbe’s Top Agent award, mitigate or contradict the charge of inefficiency and poor performance?

Whether the dismissal met both the substantive and procedural due process requirements mandated under the Labor Code.

Did TP provide sufficient notice and opportunities for Jacolbe to explain his side, thereby fulfilling procedural requirements?
Is the dismissal supported by substantial evidence showing that Jacolbe’s performance deficiencies amounted to gross inefficiency akin to gross and habitual neglect of duty?