Clientlogic vs Castro

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 510
  • Published : September 19, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
Republic of the Philippines


G.R. No. 186070, April 11, 2011

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the September 1, 2008 Decision[1] and the January 7, 2009 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification the November 29, 2007 resolution[3] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which held that respondent Benedict Castro was not illegally dismissed. The CA, however, awarded respondents money claims, viz.: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Resolutions dated 29 November 2007 and 23 January 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division) in NLRC CN. RAB-CAR-02-0091-07 LAC NO. 08-002207-07 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the monetary awards of Executive Labor Arbiter Vito C. Bose in his Decision dated 29 June 2007, as computed in Annex Athereof, ONLY for holiday premiums of Php 16,913.35; service incentive leave pay of Php 8,456.65; overtime pay of Php 578,753.10; and rest day pay of Php 26,384.80 which [petitioners] shall jointly and solidarily pay to petitioner, are hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.


The second assailed issuance of the CA denied petitionersmotion for reconsideration.

The facts:
Respondent was employed by petitioner ClientLogic Philippines, Inc. (now known as shall hereafter be referred to as SITEL on February 14, 2005 as a call center agent for its Bell South Account. After six (6) months, he was promoted to the Mentorposition, and thereafter to the Coachposition. A Coachis a team supervisor who is in charge of dealing with customer complaints which could not be resolved by call center agents. In June 2006, he was transferred to the Green Dot Account.

During respondents stint at the Dot Green Account, respondent noticed that some of the call center agents under his helm would often make excuses to leave their work stations. Their most common excuse was that they would visit the companys medical clinic. To verify that they were not using the clinic as an alibi to cut their work hours, respondent sent an e-mail to the clinics personnel requesting for the details of the agents who sought medical consultation. His request was denied on the ground that medical records of employees are highly confidential and can only be disclosed in cases of health issues, and not to be used to build any disciplinary case against them.

On October 11, 2006, respondent received a notice requiring him to explain why he should not be penalized for: (1) violating Green Dot Companys Policy and Procedure for Direct Deposit Bank Info Request when he accessed a customers online account and then gave the latters routing and reference numbers for direct deposit; and (2) gravely abusing his discretion when he requested for the medical records of his team members. Respondent did not deny the infractions imputed against him. He, however, justified his actuations by explaining that the customer begged him to access the account because she did not have a computer or an internet access and that he merely requested for a patient tracker, not medical records.

In November 2006, a poster showing SITELs organizational chart was posted on the companys bulletin board, but respondents name and picture were conspicuously missing, and the name and photo of another employee appeared in the position which respondent was supposedly occupying.

On January 22, 2007, SITEL posted a notice of vacancy for respondents position, and on February 12, 2007, he received a Notice of Termination. These events prompted him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal; non-payment of overtime pay, rest day pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay; full...
tracking img