Case Summary (G.R. No. 115439-41)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Employment began for respondent in September 2004. Escalation complaint received August 2, 2008; preventive suspension issued August 4, 2008; preventive suspension lifted August 20, 2008. Respondent filed NLRC complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims; Labor Arbiter rendered decision finding constructive dismissal on June 30, 2009. NLRC reversed on January 22, 2010; motion for reconsideration denied March 24, 2010. Court of Appeals reinstated Labor Arbiter decision on March 15, 2012. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court; Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed CA decision with modifications in monetary awards (Decision dated December 4, 2019).
Factual background — Petitioners’ account
Telus states respondent was hired in 2004 and last served as Senior Quality Analyst for the DELL APoS account. After an internal escalation by Team Captain Flores alleging disrespectful chat messages by respondent, Telus issued a due process notice and placed respondent on preventive suspension on August 4, 2008. Following investigation and administrative hearing, Telus found respondent not liable and lifted the preventive suspension, fully compensating him for the suspension period. Telus then transferred respondent to another practice for operational reasons, scheduled profiling interviews for reassignment, and placed respondent on “floating status” after he failed to attend scheduled profiling interviews and filed for constructive dismissal before the NLRC while on paid leave.
Factual background — Respondent’s account
Respondent describes a progression from call center agent to Senior Quality Analyst supervising two teams. On July 31–August 1, 2008, respondent exchanged intranet chat messages with colleagues which Team Captain Flores perceived as disrespectful. Respondent received a due process notice and was placed on preventive suspension without prior opportunity to explain. After DOLE proceedings and Telus’ internal hearing, respondent was exonerated and told to report for reassignment; subsequently Telus directed him to different reporting sites, reversed instructions, required profiling interviews for reassignment, and ultimately labeled him a “floater” with no pay after his vacation leave credits were exhausted. Respondent contends these actions made continued employment uncongenial and that he filed for constructive dismissal and damages.
Labor Arbiter’s ruling
The Labor Arbiter found Telus guilty of constructive dismissal. The arbiter relied on the combination of preventive suspension, the failure to immediately reinstate respondent after exoneration, transfer and profiling requirements, assignment to floating status after leave exhaustion, and the alleged discriminatory and hostile treatment to conclude that respondent’s continued employment was rendered impossible or intolerable. Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter ordered full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
NLRC ruling
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It held that respondent failed to prove constructive dismissal by substantial evidence and that there was no actual termination. The NLRC accepted Telus’ explanation that the company sought to reinstate respondent but operational considerations prompted transfer and profiling requirements. The NLRC characterized Telus’ actions as valid management prerogative and explained that temporary sidelining or floating pending assignment can be lawful in industries dependent on third‑party client contracts. The NLRC therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Court of Appeals ruling
The Court of Appeals found NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal. The CA emphasized that Telus did not immediately reinstate respondent after exoneration; instead, it sent inconsistent reporting instructions, compelled respondent to exhaust leave credits, placed him on floating status with no account assignment for over a month, and conditioned assignment on passing profiling interviews despite prior regular status and promotions. The CA concluded these actions created an uncongenial, discriminatory, and intolerable working environment that reasonably justified respondent’s refusal to undergo profiling and supported constructive dismissal.
Issues on review and standard of appellate review
The Supreme Court framed the core issue as whether the series of acts by Telus amounted to constructive dismissal in violation of respondent’s security of tenure. Because the NLRC and Labor Arbiter reached divergent factual conclusions, the Court invoked the limited Rule 45 exception permitting review of factual findings where misapprehension of facts or overlooked relevant undisputed facts would warrant a different conclusion. The Court therefore evaluated both fact and law to determine if constructive dismissal occurred.
Legal principles: security of tenure, management prerogative, and burden of proof
The Court reiterated that the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code protect security of tenure: employees may be terminated only for just or valid causes with due process. Employers retain management prerogative to assign, transfer, and discipline employees, but such prerogative is constrained by labor laws and principles of equity and substantial justice. For constructive dismissal claims, jurisprudence cited by the Court (including Summaries in Sumifru and Peckson) places the burden on the employer to prove that transfers or measures were valid exercises of management prerogative and not a subterfuge to get rid of an employee; transfers must not be unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial, involve demotion or diminution of salary/benefits.
Court’s factual and legal analysis supporting constructive dismissal
Applying the foregoing principles to the record, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA and Labor Arbiter that Telus’ actions collectively deprived respondent of security of tenure. The Court focused on several facts: respondent was exonerated yet not immediately reinstated; Telus gave inconsistent reporting instructions and then failed to assign an account despite available vacancies and postings for Quality Analysts; respondent was compelled to exhaust vacation leave; he was placed on floating status without proof of shortage of work or valid operational necessity; and profiling interviews were imposed as a condition for reassignment despite respondent’s regular status and prior promotions. Given Telus’ failure to prove legitimate business necessity or absence of available posts, the Court concluded that the floating status and reassignment process were used in a manner that rendered continued employment unreasonable and tantamount to dismissal.
Analysis of floating status and its limits
The Court examined the concept of “floating status” and its permissible uses, noting Article 301’s allowance for temporary suspension of operations not exceeding six months. The Court emphasized that floating status presupposes a genuine lack of available posts; an employer placing an employee on floating status bears the burden of proving a shortage of work or other valid operational reasons. Citing prior decisions, the Court observed that placing an employee on floating status in circumstances where vacancies are being filled or where the employer fails to justify non-assignment constitutes discriminatory and unfair treatment and can
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 115439-41)
Case Caption, Court and Date
- G.R. No. 202676; Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; Decision penned by Justice Hernando.
- Decision promulgated December 04, 2019.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Telus International Philippines, Inc. (Telus) and Michael Sy, assailing the March 15, 2012 Decision and July 9, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114574, which had reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal in favor of respondent Harvey De Guzman.
Procedural Posture and History
- Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated June 30, 2009 finding Telus guilty of constructive dismissal and awarding separation pay, full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; detailed computation included as Annex “A.”
- Telus appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in its January 22, 2010 Decision and dismissed the complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and money claims for lack of merit.
- De Guzman filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the NLRC, which was denied by NLRC Resolution dated March 24, 2010.
- De Guzman sought relief by filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA); the CA found grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, held De Guzman was constructively dismissed, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, and remanded for recomputation of monetary awards (March 15, 2012 Decision; July 9, 2012 Resolution denying Telus’s motion for reconsideration).
- Telus filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court which was denied; the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling with modifications to the monetary awards and ordered computation and update by the NLRC Comptutation Division.
Parties and Positions
- Petitioners: Telus International Philippines, Inc. (Telus) and Michael Sy (Quality Analyst Manager).
- Maintained that De Guzman was not dismissed; he was scheduled and intended to be reinstated or transferred for operational reasons.
- Asserted that transfers, profiling interviews, and floating status were valid exercises of management prerogative; any inconvenience alleged by De Guzman amounted to damnum absque injuria.
- Alleged defect in De Guzman’s CA Petition’s Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping (claimed forgery of his signature).
- Respondent/Complainant: Harvey De Guzman.
- Claimed he was a regular employee since 2004, last designated Senior Quality Analyst (SQA) for DELL APoS, with supervisory duties and reporting obligations to his Quality Analyst Supervisor.
- Alleged that he was placed on preventive suspension without prior opportunity to be heard; was later exonerated but not reinstated to his former post; was transferred, placed on “floating status”, required to undergo profiling interviews, and effectively constructively dismissed.
- Filed administrative and judicial remedies: complaint to DOLE for illegal suspension (settlement efforts failed), complaint for constructive dismissal and money claims before the NLRC.
Factual Antecedents (Petitioners’ Version)
- De Guzman hired around September 2004; last post as Senior Quality Analyst for DELL APoS.
- On August 2, 2008, Telus received an escalation complaint from Team Captain Jeanelyn Flores alleging disrespect and ridicule by De Guzman in chat messages exchanged on July 31 and an IP switch conversation of August 1, 2008.
- Telus issued a Due Process form on August 4, 2008 charging De Guzman with insulting/discourteous conduct and abusive behavior under Section 2, Disorderly Conduct, Items 60 and 61 of Telus’ Code of Conduct; preventive suspension imposed and De Guzman directed to submit written explanation by August 7, 2008.
- Administrative hearing held August 11, 2008; De Guzman was found not liable and no disciplinary sanction was imposed; preventive suspension lifted and compensation paid.
- Telus decided to remove De Guzman from his designation and transfer him to another practice for operations reasons; Director of Contact Center Operation confirmed request for transfer on August 20, 2008.
- De Guzman applied for paid vacation leave from August 21 to September 26, 2008.
- Telus scheduled profile interviews for De Guzman on September 16, 2008 and October 13, 2008; De Guzman failed to attend and acknowledge these schedule(s); Telus issued a Return to Work Order dated October 13, 2008.
- Telus alleged De Guzman filed a complaint for constructive dismissal as early as September 15, 2008 while still on paid leave, and that his refusal to report for interviews led to his placement on floating status.
Factual Antecedents (Respondent’s Version)
- De Guzman had been regular employee since 2004; rose from call center agent to Junior QA and then Senior QA supervising two teams of six agents; duties included monitoring and evaluating calls and submitting reports to his immediate superior.
- On July 31, 2008, Flores sent an intranet chat message to QAs: “QAs there are tons of avails, do your coaching.” De Guzman replied: “That’s good, you can now do a huddle for your team.” Flores lacked authority to order QAs to do coaching because her authority was limited to her team.
- On August 1, 2008, an exchange between De Guzman and Junior QA Rally Boy included messages that Flores saw and escalated; excerpted chat showed banter including “that is good… you can now do huddle for your team… hahaha,” and other colloquialisms.
- On August 5, 2008, De Guzman was informed by his QA Supervisor to report to Michael Sy; he was given a copy of the Incident Report, directed to answer by August 7, 2008, and placed on indefinite preventive suspension effective immediately.
- De Guzman protested preventive suspension as contrary to Telus’ handbook provisions; he filed a complaint before DOLE for illegal suspension.
- On August 20, 2008, De Guzman was informed his suspension was lifted and that he would be transferred; he reported to the branch told to report at Market! Market, but was later told to report to Ortigas; there was subsequently no available account and he was instructed to wait.
- He exhausted earned vacation leaves from August 22 to September 26, 2008 to keep receiving salary while Telus sought an account.
- After leaves were consumed, De Guzman was placed on “floating status,” informed he would not be paid while “floating,” and later told to undergo a profiling interview that he believed was not required of a regular employee and which he refused because he claimed he should have been reinstated.
- De Guzman then filed complaint before NLRC for constructive dismissal, money claims and damages.
Administrative Process and Investigations
- Telus issued Due Process form (Aug 4, 2008), suspended De Guzman preventively, required written explanation (Aug 7, 2008).
- Administrative hearing held (Aug 11, 2008); De Guzman found not liable and compensation paid for preventive suspension period; nevertheless, Telus requested transfer for operations reasons (Aug 20, 2008).
- Profile interviews scheduled and rescheduled (Sept 16, Oct 13, Oct 11 messages), and a Return to Work Order issued (Oct 13, 2008).
- De Guzman filed DOLE complaint for illegal suspension which failed to settle; he then filed complaint before NLRC for constructive dismissal.