G.R. No. 202676, December 04, 2019
Telus International Philippines, Inc. and Michael Sy, Petitioners, vs. Harvey de Guzman, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Telus International Philippines, Inc. (Telus) employed respondent Harvey de Guzman in September 2004, his last position being Senior Quality Analyst. On August 2, 2008, Telus received an escalation complaint from a Team Captain, Jeanelyn Flores, charging De Guzman with disrespect based on a July 31, 2008 chat message exchange and an August 1, 2008 conversation with a co-agent, Rally Boy Sy, where De Guzman made remarks Flores found offensive. Telus placed De Guzman on preventive suspension and required a written explanation. After an administrative hearing, Telus found De Guzman not liable and lifted his suspension with full pay. However, Telus decided to transfer De Guzman to another practice. De Guzman applied for and was on paid vacation leave from August 21 to September 26, 2008. Telus scheduled him for profile interviews on September 16 and October 13, 2008, to facilitate his transfer, but De Guzman failed to attend both. Telus issued a Return to Work Order. Telus claimed De Guzman was placed on “floating status” as there was no available account for him.
De Guzman’s version states that after his suspension was lifted on August 20, 2008, he was instructed to report to a new location but was then told there was no work for him yet. He exhausted his vacation leaves. Upon inquiry after his leave, he was told he was on “floating status” and would not be paid. He received a message for a profiling interview on October 11, 2008, but did not attend as he believed it was a pretext for his eventual termination. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with monetary claims before the NLRC on September 15, 2008.
The Labor Arbiter found constructive dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding no dismissal but that De Guzman abandoned his work. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding constructive dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Harvey de Guzman was constructively dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding that De Guzman was constructively dismissed. The transfer from his Senior Quality Analyst position, which was not for valid and authorized grounds but was a punitive action disguised as a transfer due to management’s dissatisfaction over the incident with Flores, constituted constructive dismissal. The transfer resulted in a demotion in rank and a diminution of his pay and benefits, as he was effectively stripped of his supervisory functions and placed on indefinite “floating status” without being assigned to any account or being paid. The employer’s actions made it reasonably impossible for De Guzman to continue working, forcing him to resign from his employment. The Court found the claim of abandonment unsubstantiated, as De Guzman’s filing of the complaint while on leave was a clear indicator of his desire to return to work, negating any intention to abandon. Telus was ordered to pay De Guzman full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees.