JANNATH LANE B. SUMIRAN, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION), TELETECH CARE MANAGEMENT INC., LARA DIAZ-STA. MARIA, MA. TERESA G. ROMERO, CAROL R…

Sumiran versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is Sumiran versus National Labor Relations Commission, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner, Jannath Lane B. Sumiran, was a Technical Support Representative in a call center company, Teletech Care Management Incorporated. She was dismissed for failing to meet the performance standards of the company's performance management program. She sued her employer and its officers for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, and the case travelled up to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of how a call center's performance metrics can ground a dismissal for gross and habitual neglect of duty, and of the deference the Court gives to the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission when they are supported by substantial evidence.

Procedural History

Sumiran filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with prayers for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, moral, exemplary, actual and nominal damages, and attorney's fees, against Teletech and its officers. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Sumiran appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Commission first dismissed the appeal in a resolution for non-perfection, because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was not made under oath. On Sumiran's motion for reconsideration, the Commission reconsidered that resolution but still dismissed the appeal on the merits, affirming the Labor Arbiter. Sumiran then filed the petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Commission's decision and raising grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

Sumiran began working at Teletech on July 6, 2007 as a Technical Support Representative, receiving a monthly salary of 10,000 pesos. She was enrolled in the company's performance management program, a remedial training for employees who failed to meet performance standards. She received a failing average grade of 3.0 against a passing score of 4.0 over the thirty-six week program. The company gave her another four consecutive weeks to improve, with weekly monitoring and a warning that disciplinary action would follow if she failed to reach the passing score of 4.0 each week. She promised to exert effort, but she again received failing scores of 2.70 and 2.30 for weeks 39 and 40, and was given a first and a second written warning.

She was given yet another four consecutive weeks in the program, but she still failed, getting an average of 3.70 and 2.60 in weeks 41 and 44. She was then given a final written warning dated April 19, 2009, and a Notice to Explain dated May 19, 2009, which stated that her failure to meet the minimum score was a grave offense tantamount to termination. In her reply letter dated May 25, 2009, she acknowledged that she had failed to meet the requirements of the program and that she was responsible for all her doings.

On June 15, 2009, the company issued a Notice of Decision terminating her services for violating its Code of Discipline and for her failure to meet the requirements of the performance management program. Sumiran then filed her complaint for illegal dismissal. The company countered that her employment was terminated for her continuous failure to meet the goals and standards of her job, after she had been notified, coached, and repeatedly given chances to improve.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that Sumiran's dismissal was valid on account of gross and habitual neglect of duty.
• Whether or not Sumiran was entitled to the reliefs she prayed for, namely reinstatement, full backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code provides:

ART. 282. Termination by employer: – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: xxx (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

This is the just cause on which the Court anchors the validity of Sumiran's dismissal, and the case turns on whether her repeated failing performance ratings amount to gross and habitual neglect under this provision.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. Sumiran had violated the company's Code of Discipline and failed to achieve the performance goal required of her under the performance management program, knowing that disciplinary action could be imposed. Despite several opportunities, she repeatedly failed to improve. She got a failing average of 3.0 against a passing score of 4.0 in the thirty-six week program, and even after two more four-week extensions she still failed. She herself acknowledged in her reply that she had failed to meet the requirements of the program and was responsible for her doings. The Court quoted the Commission's finding that her consistent failure to pass the metrics for thirty-eight weeks, more or less, manifested her lack of diligence to perform her job despite the opportunities given, and that her poor performance ratings amounted to gross and habitual neglect.

The Court adopted the standard from St. Luke's Medical Center versus Notario, quoting it:

xxx an employer may terminate an employee for gross and habitual neglect of duties. Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time xxx

The Court also held that Sumiran was accorded due process. Proper notice and hearing were afforded her before the termination notice was issued. She was given the chance to explain her poor performance on May 19, 2009, and was subsequently notified of her dismissal.

On the second issue, because the dismissal was valid, her claims for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, damages, and attorney's fees were unavailing. The Court stressed that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission, are accorded due respect and finality and are binding upon the court, especially when supported by substantial evidence. It found no cogent reason to deviate from those findings, and no grave abuse of discretion, which it described as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Doctrine

First, neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time. Second, an employee's consistent failure to meet the performance metrics of a valid company performance management program, despite repeated coaching and warnings, may amount to gross and habitual neglect of duty justifying dismissal. Third, a company policy on work performance is valid and binding on employees unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, and the law presumes good faith in its adoption. Fourth, the employer bears the burden of proving a just and valid cause for termination, but once the Labor Arbiter's findings are affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission and supported by substantial evidence, they are accorded due respect and finality and are binding on the courts.

Disposition

The petition was denied. Sumiran lost, and the Court upheld the validity of her dismissal and the denial of all her claims.

Remember This

Memorize the line that neglect of duty, to justify dismissal, must be both gross and habitual, and that a call center agent's repeated failing scores under a valid performance management program, despite warnings, constitute such neglect. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of gross and habitual neglect under Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code, and the rule that factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, bind the courts.