Title
Telus International Philippines, Inc. vs. De Guzman
Case
G.R. No. 202676
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2019
Employee exonerated after suspension but placed on floating status and subjected to unnecessary interviews, leading to constructive dismissal ruling.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202676)

Factual Background and Sequence of Events

Harvey De Guzman was initially hired by Telus International Philippines, Inc. (Telus) in September 2004 and last held the position of Senior Quality Analyst handling the DELL After Point of Sale account. On July 31, 2008, a complaint was lodged by Jeanelyn Flores, Team Captain of DELL APoS, accusing De Guzman of disrespect and ridicule based on certain chat messages exchanged on the company intranet. Following the complaint, Telus issued a Due Process form on August 4, 2008, charging De Guzman with violations of its Code of Conduct and placed him under preventive suspension.

After investigation and a hearing conducted on August 11, 2008, Telus found De Guzman not liable and lifted his preventive suspension, fully compensating him for the period suspended. However, Telus directed his transfer to another practice citing operational reasons. De Guzman applied for paid vacation leave shortly thereafter. When Telus scheduled profiling interviews for De Guzman on September 16 and October 13, 2008, he failed to attend, resulting in a Return to Work Order dated October 13, 2008. Telus placed him on “floating status” pending assignment to a new account, during which time he was not receiving compensation.

Meanwhile, De Guzman filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against Telus with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), contending that the transfer, “floating status,” and profiling requirements were unfair and effectively terminated his employment despite his tenure and good standing.

Positions of the Parties

  • Petitioners (Telus): Argued that De Guzman was not dismissed but was undergoing a legitimate transfer and scheduled for profile interviews as part of management prerogative. They contended the shift to “floating status” was due to lack of immediate account availability and was consistent with labor laws recognizing temporary reassignment or suspension pending work availability. They maintained that De Guzman’s refusal to attend interviews and report for work excused their non-reinstatement actions.

  • Respondent (De Guzman): Claimed he was a regular employee with an unblemished record unjustly subjected to preventive suspension without due process, and after exoneration, was not immediately reinstated to his previous position. The transfer, requirement to attend profiling interviews, and placement on “floating status” without pay created an intolerable working condition, amounting to constructive dismissal.

Rulings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals

  • Labor Arbiter (June 30, 2009): Found Telus liable for constructive dismissal. It ruled that failure to reinstate De Guzman immediately after lifting preventive suspension, transfer to another account, and imposition of profiling interviews and floating status made employment conditions uncongenial and intolerable, justifying the claim for separation pay and damages.

  • NLRC (January 22, 2010): Reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, holding that De Guzman was not constructively dismissed. The Commission emphasized that the transfer and preventive suspension had valid operational grounds; De Guzman discontinued work when he failed to attend interviews and did not report after his leave expired. The “floating status” was likened to recognized labor practices allowing temporary unassignment pending available work.

  • Court of Appeals (March 15, 2012): Reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA underscored that Telus’s failure to reinstate De Guzman immediately after exonerating him, placing him on floating status without pay, and forcing profiling interviews constituted constructive dismissal. The CA characterized these acts as a hostile and discriminatory working environment which justified De Guzman’s refusal to comply.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court, applying the 1987 Constitution and labor law principles on security of tenure, found in favor of De Guzman. The Court noted:

  • Security of Tenure and Constructive Dismissal: The Constitution and labor laws guarantee security of tenure, allowing termination only for just and valid causes after due process. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee’s work conditions are rendered intolerable or when management’s acts constitute a “dismissal in disguise.” The Court emphasized that management prerogative is subject to limitations of equity and substantial justice.

  • Burden of Proof on Employer: Following precedents, the Court highlighted that in cases of transfer or demotion alleged as constructive dismissal, the employer must prove the legitimacy of the action grounded in genuine business necessity. The transfer must not be unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial, nor involve demotion or diminution of pay or benefits.

  • Illegal Termination by Telus: The Court found that despite lifting the preventive suspension and paying wages during that period, Telus failed to reinstate De Guzman immediately to his former post. The subsequent transfer did not have valid justification given that comparable job openings existed. Placing De Guzman on “floating status” without pay for an indefinite period was not a valid exercise of management prerogative, especially since Telus failed to prove a lack of available work or accounts. The “floating status” effectively functioned as an illegal suspension and dismissal.

  • Invalidity of “Floating Status” in This Case: Although “floating status” or temporary lay-off is acknowledged under Article 301 of the Labor Code for bona fide suspension of operations not exceeding six months, its application presupposes lack of work. The Court cited the lack of evidence showing a work shortage, and pointed out Telus continued hiring during the same period. Thus, the indefinite withholding of De Guzman’s assignment with no pay violated labor protections.

  • No Evidence of Job Abandonment: De Guzman’s filing of an illegal dismissal complaint contradicted any claim of voluntary abandonment of employment.

  • Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping Issue: The Cou

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.