Uy v. Convergys Philippines, Inc.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on August 20, 2019. The case involves petitioner Deonio Q. Uy who questioned his constructive dismissal by Convergys Philippines, Inc. (CPI). However, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which found that CPI validly exercised its management prerogative when it removed Uy from his account and required him to undergo the process of re-profiling for transfer to its other programs while the administrative investigation was ongoing. The Supreme Court held that Uy failed to establish that CPI committed an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain which may constitute constructive dismissal. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248278. August 20, 2019.]
DEONIÑO Q. UY, petitioner, vs.CONVERGYS PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248278 (Deoniño Q. Uy v. Convergys Philippines, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 28, 2019 Decision 2 and the July 8, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153933 for failure of petitioner Deoniño Q. Uy (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) gravely abused its direction in declaring him to have been constructively dismissed.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Convergys Philippines, Inc. (respondent) validly exercised its management prerogative when, instead of immediately dismissing petitioner for having committed an infraction pursuant to the "Program Zero Tolerance Policy" under its Code of Conduct, it removed petitioner from the account, upon its client's request, and required him to undergo the process of re-profiling for transfer to its other programs while the administrative investigation was ongoing. 4 Moreover, petitioner failed to establish that respondent committed an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain which may constitute constructive dismissal. 5 On the contrary, petitioner never refuted respondent's assertion that he committed the infraction and that the delay in his transfer was caused by his refusal to cooperate. 6 Clearly, there appears to be no manifest error committed by the appellate court which would merit the reversal of the assailed rulings.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J. andGesmundo, J.,both on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
2.Id. at 19-33. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 34-35. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
4. See id. at 29-31.
5. See id. at 31.
6. See id. at 29.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU