Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

KRISTINE ANGELA G. BAUTISTA,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC NCR CASE NO. 12-16350-13

HON. M. AJAN
SITEL PHILIPPINES / MS. IVY GAMBAN
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------x

REPLY
COMPLAINANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto the Honorable
Office, most respectfully avers as follows:

In their Position Paper, respondents alleged the “there is no fact of

dismissal to speak of in the instant case” (page 1 thereof.) However, they
EXPRESSLY ADMIT to the fact that in a span of less than three (3) months, they
subjected the complainant in FOUR (4) alleged violations of company rules, ALL
against “good conduct and behavior”. (covered by FIVE (5) incident reports). They
even stated that respondents have “VALID CAUSES TO DISMISS” the
complainant. (see page 14 thereof)

Before delving in the issues raised by the respondents, it must first be

emphasized that the complainant herein is NO ORDINARY TEAM LEADER. She
is, in fact, one of the BEST PERFORMING Team Leaders in the respondent
company. To prove this, complainant was “CONSISTENTLY” given the TOP
COACH AWARD for TWO (2) CONSECUTIVE years: --

TOP COACH FOR 1ST TO 2ND QUARTER 2011

1
 TOP COACH FOR JANUARY 2012

As stated in the aforesaid AWARDS, respondent company recognized the

dedication of the complainant to her work with the Virgin Media account. Thus:

“She is the most proactive when it comes to tasks and

recommendations. This translated to CONSISTENTLY
BAGGING Upsell’s TOP COACH TITLE.”
Thereafter, in view of her exemplary performance, complainant was one of
the Team Leaders who were handpicked by the respondent company to be part of
MACY’S, a new and prestigious account of respondent company sometime in
May 2012. Complainant was even sent to the corporate offices of MACY’S in the
Mason, Ohio, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) for training. Out of the 1200
EMPLOYEES of respondent company, complainant was chosen with eleven (11)
other employees to represent the respondents company in MACY’s, USA.

Complainant would not have been invited personally by the respondent

company where it not for her extreme dedication in her work. Complainant spent
26 days in training abroad from June 11 to July 6, 2012. After her training, she
went back to respondent company where she was a CONSISTENT TOP
PERFORMER in the MACY’S account.

AS PROOF THEREOF, attached herewith as ANNEX A of the REPLY is

the personal invitation of respondent company to the complainant to attend the
MACY’S “Train-the-Trainer” session in Mason, Ohio, USA, and the ANNEX B of
the REPLY, is the letter request of MACY’s to the consulate general of the USA in
Manila Philippines, requesting that a VISA be issued to the complainant.

As stated in the personal invitation, the respondent company expressed

their FULL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE to the complainant, by stating that “we
appreciate your willingness to attend and know that you will represent us well.”

2
 In view of complainant’s “consistently bagging xxx the top coach title” in the
Virgin Media account, and consistent TOP PERFORMANCE in the MACY’s
account, she was personally invited to join the FDC account by Ms. Dahlia
Romana, Senior Client Services Manager of the FDC account.

THIS IS WHEN HER NIGHTMARE STARTED.

Thus, when she was transferred to a NEW account (FDC) in August 2013,
she began being subjected to various forms of THREATS and INTIMIDATIONS
from her new superiors, culminating to her being DEMOTED and REMOVED from
the FDC account, and thereafter being PREVENTED from entering company
premises. As narrated by the complainant:

November 26, 2013 – All of my security badges were DISABLED by

the respondents and so I was no longer allowed to enter the company
premises. Likewise, respondents’ SECURITY PERSONNEL PROHIBITED
me from entering the SITEL BUILDING.

December 6, 2013 when I went to the company office to inquire

about the status of my employment, Francis Edward Ayala saw me and
told me:

“ HOY! ANONG GINAGAWA MO PA DITO!”

To reiterate, NO RETURN TO WORK ORDER was ever given to the
complainant by the respondents after her unjust removal from her last work
assignment. Accordingly, right after she was removed from the FDC account
without a valid ground or due process, complainant was NO LONGER ALLOWED
TO ENTER THE COMPANY PREMISES. SHE WAS EVEN BARRED BY THE
RESPONDENT COMPANY’S SECURITY GUARDS FROM ENTERING THE
COMPANY BUILDING.

After her unjust dismissal on November 26, 2013, complainant tried to

contact the management of the respondents but to no avail. All her text
messages to her superiors and the Human Resources Department were not
answered. She was not approached or contacted by any personnel of the
respondents by any means. There was no order given to her by the respondents
for her to return to work. CLEARLY, complainant had no other recourse but to
consider her employment as TERMINATED by the respondents and to file this
complaint for dismissal.

Likewise, DURING the hearings for mediation and conciliation before the
Honorable Arbiter, respondents NEVER DENIED that the complainant was
already terminated from employment. They even accused her of committing fraud
during her employment with the company. NO OFFER was made by the
respondents for her to return to work.

It must be noted that JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS made by parties in the

pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are
3
conclusive and so does not require further evidence to prove them. These
admissions CANNOT be contradicted unless previously shown to have been
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (Damasco
v. NLRC, 400 Phil. 568, 586 (2000), citing Philippine American General Insurance
Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434, August 5, 1992, 212 SCRA 194).

In their Position Paper, respondents claimed that after the complainant

“failed the training assessment of the FDC account” and “she was temporarily
ordered to the HR Office.” (page 11 thereof) THIS IS A LIE.

Such BARE ALLEGATIONS have no merit. Where is the proof that the
complainant was “ordered” to return to the HR Office? NONE. Complainant
CATEGORICALLY DENIES that the respondents “ordered” her to report for work
at the HR Office. ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION WAS MADE TO THE
COMPLAINANT FROM NOVEMBER 26, 2013 TO JANUARY 8, 2014.

Without any evidence, such BARE ALLEGATIONS are clearly BEREFT of

any merit. As CONSISTENTLY ruled by the Supreme Court.:

“Certainly, elementary as a hornbook doctrine is the evidentiary rule

in our jurisdiction that bare allegations do not constitute evidence at all, but
the same are self-serving at best (Tuason v. Court of Appeals 241 SCRA
295 (1995); “Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are not
equivalent to proof, under the Rules of Court” (Manzano v. Perez 362
SCRA 430 (2001); “(A)n allegation in a pleading is not evidence but is a
declaration that has to be proved by evidence. (Reyes v. CA, G.R. No.
147758, June 26, 2002)

To correct the error of their ways, the respondents then charged the
complainant for alleged for failure to report for work and claimed that complainant
allegedly violated respondents “lawful” order for her to report to the HR Office.
(See Annex 18 of respondents’ Position Paper.).

To reiterate, NO such order or instruction was given to the complainant.

What, in fact, happened is that the complainant was NO LONGER allowed to
enter the company premises as her electronic gate passes were all REVOKED by
the company. She was even BARRED by the security guards from entering the
respondents’ building. When she to tried to report for work, Francis Edward Ayala
saw her and shouted to her: “HOY! ANONG GINAGAWA MO PA DITO!”.

From all the foregoing, it is clear that the complainant was

CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED by the respondents after she was subjected by
the respondents to CONSTANT HARASSMENT, BULLYING, VERBAL ABUSE,
THREATS, NUMEROUS UNFOUNDED DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS which
culminated to her DEMOTION and thereafter being PROHIBITED FROM
ENTERING COMPANY PREMISES. All of these acts committed by the
respondents against the complainant clearly made her continued employment
IMPOSSIBLE, forcing the complainant to file the instant case for constructive
dismissal.

4
 As ruled by the High Court: “Constructive dismissal exists where there is
cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution
in pay" and other benefits. Aptly called a DISMISSAL IN DISGUISE or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive
dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or
disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that
it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.
(MORALES vs. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC., G.R. No. 174208,
January 25, 2012)

Finally, the constant ABUSES which she received from the respondents
took a SERIOUS TOLL IN HER PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH as stated in
her email to the respondents (Annex E).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of the complainant and against the
respondents, as follows:

1. To declare the dismissal of the Complainant as ILLEGAL, the same

having been effected without a just cause and without due process;
2. To order the respondents to reinstate the complainant to her former
position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and in case
this is no longer possible, to pay the complainant her separation pay;
3. To order the respondents SOLIDARILY liable to pay the complainant
her FULL BACK WAGES, inclusive of allowances and other benefits to
be computed from the time compensation was withheld from her up to
her actual reinstatement;
4. To pay the complainant moral and exemplary damages, plus Attorney’s
Fees.

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, February 26, 2014.

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg.,
No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon Ave., Quezon City
Roll 37522 / IBP Life 010564 2-3-12 Pasig
PTR 9019138 1-7-14 QC / MCLE IV - 0018064

Copy Furnished:
SITEL PHILS. / IVY GAMBAN
Sitel Bldg., Ortigas Home Depot Complex,
One Juliana Vargas Ave., Ortigas, Pasig City
5