Case Summary (G.R. No. 253715)
Factual Background
Moll was hired by Convergys as a Sales Associate I at its Eton Centris Office in Quezon City on May 4, 2015, earning a monthly salary of ₱24,362.88. On March 25, 2018, Moll ceased to receive work assignments. He attempted to address the issue with the Human Resources Department but was denied access to the HR office. Subsequently, Moll filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on April 19, 2018.
Convergys contended that Moll was not dismissed but was rather transferred to the U-verse program at the Glorietta Office, an assertion that Moll disputes, claiming it lacked basis and was not properly documented.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Moll on September 12, 2018, declaring that Convergys illegally dismissed him. The Arbiter ordered Convergys to pay Moll backwages, separation pay, unpaid salary, pro-rated 13th-month pay for 2018, and attorney's fees totaling ₱264,329.13. The decision was grounded on the conclusion that Convergys abused its discretion in transferring Moll without just cause and the circumstances surrounding his failed assignment corroborated his claim of illegal dismissal.
NLRC's Ruling
Upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter's ruling on January 25, 2019, stating that Moll failed to prove his dismissal. The NLRC asserted that the transfer of Moll was justified by the company's management prerogative and ordered Moll to return to work without back wages. Moll's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
Moll challenged the NLRC ruling in the Court of Appeals, reiterating his stance that there was no formal transfer to the Glorietta Office, thus rendering the RTWOs as afterthoughts lacking proper legal basis. The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC decision in a ruling on February 11, 2020.
Current Petition
Moll sought relief from the Supreme Court, contending that he was constructively dismissed due to the lack of work assignments and being barred from entering the HR office. Convergys maintained that Moll's assertions were unfounded, again emphasizing the legality of the transfer.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court found merit in Moll's petition, stating that he successfully evidenced his dismissal, as Convergys did not provide adequate documentation to support its claims of a legitimate transfer. The principle of burden of proof was emphasized, shifting responsibility to Convergys to justify the alleged dismissal which it failed to do.
Legal and Monetary Awards
The Supreme Court ruled that Moll was illegally dismissed and, therefore, entitled to back wages from March 25, 2018, until the finality of the decis
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 253715)
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Vincent Michael Banta Moll
- Respondents: Convergys Philippines, Inc., Andrea J. Ayers, Andre S. Valentine, Jarrod Pontius, Cormac Twomey, Abigail Gonzales, Irene Sangcal, and Mark Anthony Cabugao
- G.R. No.: 253715
- Date of Decision: April 28, 2021
- Context: The case revolves around the petitioner’s claims of illegal dismissal from his employment with Convergys Philippines, Inc.
Background of the Case
- Petitioner was hired on May 4, 2015, as a Sales Associate I at the Eton Centris Office, handling the Direct TV account with a monthly salary of P24,362.88.
- On March 25, 2018, he stopped receiving work schedules and was denied entry to the Human Resources Department when he sought clarification.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on April 19, 2018, after he was ordered to report back to work during mediation proceedings at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Respondents' Position
- Convergys argued that the petitioner was transferred to the U-verse Program at the Glorietta Office due to excess manpower at Eton Centris.
- The transfer was characterized as a management prerogative that did not affect the petitioner’s salary or require different skills.
- Petitioner initially agreed to the transfer but failed to report thereafter, prompting the issuance of Return to Work Orders (RTWOs).
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- The Labor Arbiter concluded that the petitioner was illegally dismissed, citing the lack of justification for the trans