G.R. No. 219166 . November 10, 2021
TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE MANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MARIO GERONA, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Teletech Customer Care Management Philippines, Inc. (Teletech), a business process outsourcing company, hired respondent Mario Gerona, Jr. as a technical support representative for its Accenture account on July 21, 2008. He became a regular employee on January 17, 2009. On October 30, 2009, Teletech informed Gerona he would be transferred to the Telstra account, conditioned on passing training, assessment, and examination, and provided a Transfer Agreement. Teletech stated refusal to take examinations would result in termination due to redundancy. Gerona refused, believing it infringed his security of tenure. His supervisor issued a memorandum stating employees declining transfer need not log in until redundancy was finalized. On November 17, 2009, Gerona received a notice dated November 16, 2009, informing him of his dismissal due to redundancy effective December 16, 2009. Gerona, through counsel, sent a demand letter asserting no redundancy existed as Teletech continued hiring, and as a regular employee, he should not be required to take another examination. On January 7, 2010, Gerona filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for backwages, reinstatement or separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Teletech argued the decrease in call volume for the Accenture account created an excess of technical support representatives. It offered transfers to the Telstra account using criteria of first call resolution scores and existence of remediation cases, identifying Gerona as a bottom performer. Teletech claimed training was necessary due to differences between accounts (Australian vs. American customers). Due to Gerona’s refusal, Teletech dismissed him for redundancy and submitted a notice to the DOLE. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal due to redundancy valid but awarded separation pay. The NLRC denied Gerona’s appeal, upholding Teletech’s management prerogative and the validity of the redundancy dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, declaring Gerona illegally terminated, finding his position not redundant in relation to Teletech’s entire organization, the notice period non-compliant, and the conditional transfer offer prejudicial to his security of tenure.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and declaring respondent Mario Gerona, Jr. illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that Teletech failed to prove by substantial evidence that Gerona’s dismissal was due to a valid redundancy program. Redundancy requires the position itself be superfluous, and the employer must prove it used fair and reasonable criteria in selecting employees for dismissal. Teletech only demonstrated a decrease in call volume for one specific account (Accenture), not that Gerona’s position had become in excess of the company’s overall needs. The offer of transfer to the Telstra account was conditional upon passing examinations, which effectively placed Gerona in a probationary status anew, violating his security of tenure as a regular employee. Furthermore, Teletech failed to comply with the mandatory 30-day notice period to the employee and the DOLE, as the notice to Gerona was served less than 30 days before the effectivity of termination. Therefore, Gerona’s dismissal was illegal. He is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, from the time of his illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer possible, he shall be paid separation pay in lieu of reinstatement plus full backwages.