Fulgado v. Telstra International Philippines, Inc.
This is a civil case summarizing the Resolution of the Supreme Court (Second Division) on January 18, 2021, in G.R. No. 254072, Sandra C. Fulgado v. Telstra International Philippines, Inc. and Jo Anne Hernandez. The High Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 29, 2020, and October 20, 2020, in CA-G.R. SP No. 163734. The CA upheld the National Labor Relations Commission's finding that the petitioner's dismissal was valid due to her substantiated repeated commission of call avoidance, violating the company rules and regulations. Consequently, the denial of petitioner's claims for backwages, separation pay, and damages was sustained. The CA's award of attorney's fees was also affirmed, consistent with Article 111 of the Labor Code.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254072. January 18, 2021.]
SANDRA C. FULGADO, petitioner,vs. TELSTRA INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. AND JO ANNE HERNANDEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated18 January 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254072 (Sandra C. Fulgado v. Telstra International Philippines, Inc. and Jo Anne Hernandez). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated June 29, 2020 2 and October 20, 2020 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 163734 for failure of petitioner Sandra C. Fulgado (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the National Labor Relations Commission's finding 4 that her dismissal was valid and in denying her money claims.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's substantiated repeated commission of call avoidance in violation of the company rules and regulations was a valid cause to terminate her employment. Hence, the denial of petitioner's claims for backwages and separation pay is sustained for lack of basis. Likewise, the claim for moral and exemplary damages is denied absent a showing of bad faith on the part of respondents Telstra International Philippines, Inc. and Jo Anne Hernandez, while the award of attorney's fees is in accordance with Article 111 5 of the Labor Code. 6 HTcADC
SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020; on official leave)."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-36-A.
2.Id. at 42-48. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3.Id. at 50-51.
4. See Decision dated July 22, 2019 and Resolution dated October 1, 2019 of the NLRC in NLRC LAC No. 03-001223-19 penned by Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto with Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, concurring; id. at 75-102 and 104-105, respectively.
5. Article 111. Attorney's fees. — (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney's fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
6. See CA Resolution, id. at 43-47.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU