24) Telephilippines, Inc. vs. Jacolbe

Telephilippines, Inc. vs.
Jacolbe
Facts:
Fernando Jacolbe was hired by Telephilippines as a Customer Service Representative. One of the
metrics they have to follow is to maintain an Average Handel Time of 7.0 minutes or below. Jacolbe’s
attention was called due to is failure to meet the set standard twice. He was put under the company’s
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). However, despite being on PIP, he continued to fail to meet the
set goal and the HRD sent him a letter (Notice To Explain) informing that he has failed to perform to
meet the AHD Goal for the last 6 months. If this was proven, this can cause his termination. Jacolbe
submitted his response but TP was not satisfied and he was terminated for failure to meet account
specific performance metrics or certification requirements under Section V.B.4 of its Code of Conduct
and Zero Tolerance Policy. He filed a complaint of illegal dismissal before the NLRC and the Labor
Arbiter ruled in his favor stating that Jacolbe’s failure to meet the 7-minute AHT mark in two (2)
instances could hardly be considered as habitual and gross neglect of duties that would warrant his
dismissal, especially since Jacolbe was awarded as Top Agent in December 2012. Moreover, the LA
found that TP failed to fully apprise Jacolbe of the specific violation of company rules he had
committed, explaining that while the Incident Report cited only two (2) instances that he failed to meet
the AHT target, the Notice to Explain, on the other hand, pointed to a six (6)-month unsatisfactory
work performance. It was also observed that in the whole 5 years of working with the company,
Jacolbe was without record of any infraction. The cited 2 incidents cannot be construed habitually
done that would merit his dismissal. However, the decision was reversed by the NLRC on appeal
stating that Jacobe’s failure to meet the AHT mark from January 2012 to his dismissal on March 2013
was a violation of the company’s company-prescribed work standard. Under TP’s classification of
offenses, such violation is considered gross negligence punishable by termination of employment on
the fourth offense. NLRC held that Jacolbe’s consistent failure to meet the reasonable work standards
set by TP for a prolonged period of time exhibited incompetence, inefficiency, and inability to
proficiently resolve customer’s problems that justified his dismissal. However, CA set aside the ruling
of the NLRC and reinstated the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.
Issue:
Whether Jacolbe was illegally terminated
Held:
No. The SC ruled that Jacolbe was not illegally terminated. A valid dismissal necessitates compliance
with both substantive and procedural due process requirements. Substantive due process mandates that
an employee may be dismissed based only on just or authorized causes under Articles 297, 298, and
299 (formerly Articles 282, 283, and 284) of the Labor Code, as amended. On the other hand,
procedural due process requires the employer to comply with the requirements of notice and hearing
before effecting the dismissal. In all cases involving termination of employment, the burden of proving
the existence of the above valid causes rests upon the employer. The quantum of proof required in
these cases is substantial evidence as discussed above. Gross inefficiency is analogous to gross and
habitual neglect of duty under Article 297(e) in relation to Article 297(b) of the Labor Code, as
amended, for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to
the employer or to his business, and constituting, therefore, just cause to dismiss an employee. The SC
explained in quoting the case of Buiser vs Regalado that inefficiency is understood to mean failure to
attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable
period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. In San Miguel Corporation vs NLRC, SC ruled that an
employer is entitled to prescribe reasonable work standards, rules, and regulations necessary for the
conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement them, and to
assure that the same would be complied with. This management prerogative of requiring standards
may be availed of so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s
interest. Undoubtedly, Jacolbe’s repeated and consistent failure to meet the prescribed AHT mark over
a prolonged period of time falls squarely under the concept of gross inefficiency and is analogous to
gross and habitual neglect of duty under Article 297 of the Labor Code which justified his dismissal.

24) Telephilippines, Inc. vs. Jacolbe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

24) Telephilippines, Inc. vs. Jacolbe

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

24) Telephilippines, Inc. vs. Jacolbe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Telephilippines, Inc. vs.

Whether Jacolbe was illegally terminated

You might also like