DECENA Case Digest Client Logic V Castro

DECENA, Elias Rafael L.
Arbiter Melchisedek Guan

L2A Labor Law 1
LABOR LAW 1
CLIENT LOGIC PHILIPPINES, INC. v CASTRO

G.R. No. 186070
Facts:
Castro was employed by ClientLogic (SITEL) as call center agent and after some time, transferred him to
a “mentor” position and eventually to a “coach” position. In this capacity, Castro was in charge of dealing
with customer complaints which cannot be resolved by call center agents.
Months after working as coach, Castro noticed that some of the call center agents under him would make
excuses to go to the clinic. In his attempt to find out if these were just excuses to cut down work hours,
Castro contacted the clinic to request records but was promptly denied due to patient confidentiality.
Because of this action, Castro received a notice to explain why he should not be penalized for such action
together with another notice to explain why he violated the company’s policy against direct procedure and
request when he acted on behalf of a previous client.
From these cases, Castro was dismissed by SITEL citing valid and justifiable cause. Castro filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages (overtime pay, rest day pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay and full backwages). In their answer, SITEL averred that Castro was not
entitled to such payment because he was a supervisor, hence, a member of the managerial staff; and as
contemplated by Art. 82 of the Labor Code, is not entitled to such pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor
of Castro.
SITEL appealed to NLRC which reversed the decision on illegal dismissal and rule that Castro was
dismissed for just cause; however, it failed to rule on the money claims. Upon another appeal to the CA,
the court affirmed NLRC’s ruling on non-illegal dismissal but sided with the LA on the money claims.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Castro is a managerial staff and thus not entitled to such pay
HELD:
NO. Castro is not a managerial staff rather a part of the regular (rank and file) workforce of SITEL. The
petition hinges on the question of whether the duties and responsibilities performed by respondent qualify
him as a member of petitioners’ managerial staff. This is clearly a question of fact. Employees are
considered occupying managerial positions if they meet all of the following conditions; namely: (1)
primary duty consists of management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department
or subdivision thereof; (2) they customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees
therein; and (3) they have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions
and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of
other employees are given particular weight. Furthermore, Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code defines a
managerial employee as "one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions.
Castro states that he worked from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. or 4 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. of the following day; he
was also required to work during his restdays and during holidays but he was not paid; he was also not
paid overtime pay; night shift differentials, and service incentive leave. He was employed as call center
agent on 14 February 2005, then promoted as "Mentor" in August 2005, and again promoted to "Coach"
position in September 2005, which was the position he had when he was terminated. A "coach" is a team
supervisor who is in charge of dealing with customer complaints which could not be dealt with by call
center agents, and if a call center agent could not meet the needs of a customer, he passes the customer’s
call to the "coach." Clearly, (respondent) is not a managerial employee as defined by law. Thus, he is
entitled to his money claims.
PRINCIPLES:
Managerial staff
They are considered as officers or members of a managerial staff if they perform the following duties and
responsibilities:
1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management of policies of
their employer;
2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;
3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of
management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under
general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or
knowledge; or (iii) execute, under general supervision, special assignment and tasks xxx.

DECENA Case Digest Client Logic V Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECENA Case Digest Client Logic V Castro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECENA Case Digest Client Logic V Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECENA, Elias Rafael L.

Arbiter Melchisedek Guan

CLIENT LOGIC PHILIPPINES, INC. v CASTRO

2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;

You might also like