by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
Vincent Michael Banta Moll vs. Convergys Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 253715 (28 April 2021):
Not Giving Assignment and Barring from Entering Work Premises Tantamount to Dismissal
In a Decision dated 28 April 2021, the Supreme Court’s Second Division held that a Call Center Agent, petitioner Vincent Michael Banta Moll, was illegally dismissed by his company Convergys Philippines, Inc., a Business Processing Outsourcing Company, when he was not given new assignment and barred from entering work premises. From 04 May 2015 to 24 March 2021, petitioner Moll was working as Sales Associate I assigned in respondent Convergys’ Eton Centris Office. He was assigned to handle the Direct TV (DTV) Account. On 24 March 2018, petitioner Moll was no longer given schedule and work assignment. Petitioner Moll went to the Eton Centris Office to clarify with the Human Resources Department, but he was refused entry in the office.
Petitioner Moll filed a Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) before the National Labor Relations Commission. During the SENA mediation, petitioner Moll was ordered to report back to work. Petitioner Moll pursued the case and the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor. The Labor Arbiter held that Convergys failed to justify petitioner Moll’s transfer from its Eton Centris Office to Glorietta Office which is farther from where he is staying. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and held that the transfer of some of DTV Account’s excess employees in Eton Centris to the U-verse Account in Glorietta was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Petitioner Moll brought the case to the Court of Appeals but to no avail.
In the Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and held that petitioner Moll was able to sufficiently establish the fact of his dismissal. The fact that petitioner Moll was not given assignments anymore and the fact that he was barred from entering the work premises in Eton Centris Office is tantamount to dismissal. The Supreme Court relied in its earlier rulings in Valiant Machinery and Metal Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 105877 (25 January 1996), Casa Cebuana Incorporada vs. Leuterio, G.R. No. 176040 (04 September 2009), Ala Mode Garments, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122165 (17 February 1997), and Kingsize Manufacturing Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 110452-54 (24 November 1994), which held that barring an employee from entering the company premises will amount to constructive dismissal.
The Court did not subscribe to the position of Convergys that the transfer of petitioner Moll from the Eton Centris Office to the Glorietta Office was a valid exercise of its management prerogative because “Convergys failed to adduce any office document, be it in the form of a memorandum, notice, letter, email, or any form of communication pertaining to petitioner’s supposed transfer to the Glorietta Office.” The Court also did not sustain Convergys’ argument that petitioner Moll acceded to the transfer by attending the training but did not finish the same and did not report to work anymore. The Court held that petitioner Moll could not have abandoned work as there was no proof adduced that he was already on payroll of the U-Verse Account in the Glorietta Office.
Parenthetically, the Court discussed even the merits of the transfer since the respondent’s witness, Mark Anthony Cabugao, who executed an Affidavit, is not competent to testify on the justification of the transfer since he is a Team Leader of the Eton Centris Office. Hence, he is not competent to testify that there is lack of manpower and demand in the Glorietta Office. The Court also noted that Cabugao’s Affidavit did not state the exact number of agents in the DTV Account compared to its demand to show that there was an excess of agents for that account which would justify their transfer to other accounts or work premises.
Finally, citing ICT Marketing Services, Inc. vs. Sales, G.R. No. 202090 (09 September 2015), the Supreme Court sympathized to the plight of Call Center Agents:
“Respondent’s work as a CSR – which is essentially that of a call center agent – is not easy. For one, she was made to work the graveyard shift – that is, from late at night or midnight until dawn or early morning. This certainly takes a toll on anyone’s physical health. Indeed, call center agents are subjected to conditions that adversely affect their physical, mental and emotional health; exposed to extreme stress and pressure at work by having to address the customers’ needs and insure their satisfaction, while simultaneously being conscious of the need to insure efficiency at work by improving productivity and a high level of service; subjected to excessive control and strict surveillance by management; exposed to verbal abuse from customers; suffer social alienation precisely because they work the graveyard shift – while family and friends are at rest, they are working, and when they are at rest, family and friends are up and about; and they work at a quick-paced environment and under difficult circumstances owing to progressive demands and ambitious quotas/targets set by management. To top it all, they are not exactly well-paid for the work they have to do and the conditions they have to endure.”
Certainly, jurisprudence is shaping in favor of Call Center Agents because of the stress they endure at work. This will become relevant in Bohol as there are new Call Centers sprouting.