G.R. No. 202676 - Telus International Philippines, Inc. vs. De Guzman

Telus International Philippines, Inc. (Telus) hired respondent Harvey De Guzman in September 2004 as an Inbound Sales Associate.
De Guzman was last designated as Senior Quality Analyst (SQA) for the DELL After Point of Sale (DELL APoS) account.

On July 31, 2008, Jeanelyn Flores, Team Captain of DELL APoS, sent a chat message directing Quality Analysts (QAs) to perform coaching due to abundant available time ("tons of avails").
De Guzman replied, “that is good, you can now do your huddle for your team,” which Flores found offensive and implied disrespect.
Flores discovered an August 1, 2008, chat between De Guzman and a co-agent wherein De Guzman allegedly made disrespectful remarks against her.
Flores filed an escalation complaint against De Guzman on August 2, 2008, citing disrespect and abusive language.

Telus issued a Due Process form against De Guzman for violation of its Code of Conduct, including items on Disorderly Conduct.
De Guzman was placed under preventive suspension from August 4, 2008, and was directed to submit a written explanation, which he complied with.
After administrative hearing on August 11, 2008, Telus found De Guzman not guilty and lifted the suspension with corresponding full compensation.
Despite acquittal, Telus decided to transfer De Guzman to another practice for “operations reasons” citing avoidance of untoward incident between De Guzman and Flores.

De Guzman applied for paid vacation leave from August 21 to September 26, 2008, after being informed of the transfer.
Telus scheduled profiling interviews on September 16 and October 13, 2008, which De Guzman failed to attend or acknowledge.
Telus issued a Return to Work Order on October 13, 2008. De Guzman refused to report citing he was already a regular employee entitled to automatic reinstatement.
Telus placed De Guzman on “floating status,” meaning he had no work assignment and no salary, pending transfer to a new account.

De Guzman filed a complaint for illegal suspension before DOLE, which resulted in failed settlement.
He subsequently filed a complaint with the NLRC for constructive dismissal and money claims.

The Labor Arbiter found Telus guilty of constructive dismissal, citing failure to reinstate De Guzman and the imposition of “floating status.”
De Guzman was awarded separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, ruling that no constructive dismissal occurred since De Guzman voluntarily ceased working by not reporting post-leave.
The transfer, profiling interviews, and floating status were deemed valid exercises of management prerogative.
The NLRC noted that floating status in call center businesses is analogous to being “off detail" or "waiting to be posted" in other industries.

The CA reversed the NLRC decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that De Guzman was constructively dismissed.
It emphasized the uncongenial, hostile, and discriminatory working conditions made by Telus: preventive suspension without reinstatement, inconsistent reporting instructions, floating status with no account for work, and mandatory profile interviews.
The CA held that these acts made De Guzman’s employment intolerable, thus justifying his refusal to attend the profile interviews.
The CA denied that De Guzman abandoned his job.

Telus questioned the CA’s factual findings, asserting its actions were valid management prerogative without illegal dismissal or constructive dismissal.
Telus also claimed defects in De Guzman’s verification and certification against forum shopping before the CA.

Whether respondent Harvey De Guzman was constructively dismissed by petitioner Telus International Philippines, Inc. despite his preventive suspension being lifted and exoneration from charges.

Whether the transfer, placement on floating status, and requirement to undergo profiling interviews constitute valid exercises of management prerogative or unlawful acts amounting to constructive dismissal.

Whether the alleged defective Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping attached to the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals justifies dismissal of the petition.