Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region Arbitration Branch
Quezon City

ANNALYN V. TORRES, NLRC-RAB Case No. NCR-

NCR-10-15293-17
Complainant,
- versus –

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES,

EDDA DE DIOS, JULE HUSSEIN PATRICIO, AND
ZYMAR ZUÑIGA
Respondents.
x ---------------------------------------------x

REPLY POSITION PAPER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

The COMPLAINANT, pro se, most respectfully states:

I. THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY TERMINATED BY THE

RESPONDENTS.

1. It is useful to review and reiterate the ultimate facts, as discussed in the Position Paper of the
complainant, proving the ILLEGAL DISMISSAL of the complainant as committed by the
respondents.

(a) The complainant, on or around 4:00 - 5:00 PM of July 11, 2017, felt weak, nauseous, and
dizzy, prompting her to immediately seek medical attention and consult her family doctor,
Dr. Maria Zenaida Ventura, who has been treating her for quite some time for vertigo.

(b) She was advised by Dr. Maria Zenaida Ventura to rest as she had difficulty staying upright
and much less, walking.

(c) On the same day, SHE NOTIFIED HER IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, as per company
policy and protocol, Ms. Maricel Cruz, who was training under Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio,
that SHE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPORT TO WORK BECAUSE OF VERTIGO,
on or around 9:00 PM or two (2) hours prior to her scheduled shift which was 11:00 PM to
8:00 AM.

(d) Her medical condition continued the following day, July 12, 2017, and up to July 13, 2017,
she was still having bouts of vertigo.

(e) On July 12, 2017, she sent her Medical Certificate, Annex “B” in the complainant’s position
paper, via messenger to Ms. Maricel Cruz, her immediate supervisor. However, she was
informed that the said medical certificate was not accepted by her training supervisor, Mr.
Jule Hussein Patricio.

(f) On July 14, 2017, even though still weak and feeling dizzy, she went to Healthway Medical
Center in BGC, Taguig City, to have another check-up and to back-up her initial medical
certificate that was not accepted by Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio, and was able to secure another
Medical Certificate, Annex “D” in the complainant’s position paper.

(g) Upon reporting to work that same day, she submitted both Medical Certificates (Annex “B”
and “D”) but she was informed that Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio will not accept the said
Medical Certificates (Annex “B” and “D”), as it was not issued by a specialist Eye, Ear, Nose
& Throat (EENT) doctor.
 (h) The complainant explained that her family doctor, Dr. Maria Zenaida Ventura, was a
generalist and licensed to treat her illness and was quite familiar with her history of vertigo,
while Dr. Mae Joy Vena Alde Campo, from Healthway, was an internal medicine doctor.

(i) As she was still weak, nauseated, and feeling dizzy that day, she was advised by
SUTHERLAND’S INTERNAL MEDICAL CLINIC to return home to rest and recuperate,
while Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio instructed her to secure a Medical Certificate from an EENT
specialist doctor.

(j) On July 17, 2017, having rested for a few days, she went to the Medical City to secure a
Medical Certificate, Annex “E” in the complainant’s position paper, from an EENT doctor as
per the unreasonable demand of Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio.

(k) She submitted the Medical Certificate (Annex “E”) to her immediate supervisor, Ms. Maricel
Cruz, when she reported back to work on the same day.

(l) During this time, the complainant was SUBJECTED TO PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
EMOTIONAL HARRASSMENT by Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio, as can be seen from the
exchange of chat messages between the complainant and respondent.

(m) In a Letter, dated July 28, 2017, issued by Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio, she was informed that
she had a Notice to Explain (NTE) memorandum that she need to answer in writing within
five (5) days from receipt thereof and was instructed to attend an Administrative Hearing on
August 11, 2017, in relation thereto.

(n) She submitted her written explanation on July 31, 2017 to Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio,
reiterating her previous statements regarding her medical situation.

(o) On August 11, 2017, she attended her Administrative Hearing with the following persons in
attendance:

 Ms. Edda De Dios, HR Senior Manager

 Mr. Jule Hussein Patricio, Team Manager
 Ms. Kim Hingpit, Team Manager

(p) On the same day, the complainant was informed and given the results of the Administrative
Hearing DISMISSING HER FROM HER EMPLOYMENT from the company, Annex
“H” in the complainant’s position paper

2. An in-depth discussion of what a NO CALL, NO SHOW or NCNS means, will help this
honourable office to appreciate the facts of this case.

(a) As the term implies, a No Call, No Show or NCNS categorically means an employee does not
report to work without informing his superiors or management the reason of his absence. In
the BPO setting, this means that an agent or consultant, if he is to be absent on a particular
instance must INFORM his immediate supervisor of (1) his inability to report to work, and
(2) his reason why he cannot report to work, otherwise he will be declared or tagged as
NCNS.

(b) This process or procedure is put in place in order to allow the management to mitigate any
unforeseen decrease of available seats or people frontlining the company. In other words, this
practice of informing management of the agent or consultant’s unavailability ahead of time
will allow the company’s work force team to supplement the available frontliners or agents
by calling and instructing other agents or consultants, who are on their rest days, to report to
work and cover for the absent agent or consultant.

(c) In paragraph 10 of the respondent’s position paper, the respondent states that:

The series of serious offenses of the Complainant started when she did not report to work on
July 11-13, 2017. In these successive absences starting from the said date, the Complainant
NEITHER INFORMED NOR GAVE PRIOR NOTICE to Sutherland Philippines of her
intention or reason for such absences, per protocol.
 (d) However, this statement is belied by the complainant’s NOTIFICATION OF HER
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, Ms. Maricel Cruz, thru Sutherland’s shift phone, as
evidenced by Annex “C” in the complainant’s position paper.

(e) This irrefutable fact necessarily destroys the respondent’s basis for its NOTICE TO
EXPLAIN memorandum dated July 28, 2017 and in effect the respondent’s NOTICE OF
DECISION dated August 11, 2017, as the complainant’s NOTIFICATION OF HER
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR negates the sole basis for her alleged infraction or offense of
NCNS, under Sutherland’s Employee Handbook or Code of Conduct, more particularly:

Title 1 Attendance, Work Schedule And Other Employment Practices – No. 3 NCNS,
Unauthorized absence or Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) for three (3)
consecutive working days of the Employee Handbook or Code of Conduct (COC)

(f) The complainant’s NOTIFICATION OF HER IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR

categorically shows her compliance of the company’s rule on NCNS which is to inform the
company of her inability to report to work.

3. An exhaustive discussion on the genuineness and validity of the medical certificate which is also
used by the respondent to unreasonably rationalize it’s arbitrary decision must be made here.

(a) In paragraph 39 of the respondent’s position paper, the respondent states:

“It is quite worth noting that the Complainant maliciously submitted a false medical
certificate to defraud the Company.”

(b) Also, in paragraph 43 of the respondent’s position paper, it declares:

“It is quite clear that the Complainant intently and maliciously submitted an invalid medical
certificate to defraud the Company in order to escape liability from her unexcusable
violations.”

(c) Merriam-Webster defines the word false as “not genuine” and “intentionally untrue”, while it
defines invalid as “being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law”. Additionally, it
defines a (medical) certificate as “a document containing a certified statement as to the truth
of something (medical condition)”.

(d) Claiming and declaring a document as FALSE and INVALID without any proof
substantiating such a claim or declaration does not automatically makes the said document as
such. The respondent has not shown or presented any evidence to back up its unreasonale and
whimsical claim that the medical certificate submitted by the complainant is indeed “not
genuine” and “intentionally untrue”.

(e) A simple call or visit to the said medical clinic or doctor that issued the said medical
certificate in question could have helped the respondent to truly ascertain if the complainant’s
explanation vis-a-vis her medical condition is true or not. We must remember that the
medical certificate is but a certified document as to the true and genuine nature of her medical
condition.

(f) In order to prove the genuineness and truthfulness of the said medical certificate (Annex
“B”), Dr. Maria Zenaida Ventura, the medical doctor who issued the medical certificate has
executed an Affidavit to verify the same as TRUE and VALID, herein attached as ANNEX
“J” – AFFIDAVIT OF DR. MARIA ZENAIDA VENTURA.

4. The respondent, in paragraph 48 of the respondent’s position paper, claim:

“It must be emphazised that in Sutherland Philippines, every unmanned post, as a result of
tardiness, unplanned and unexpected absences and leaves, does not only affect the operational
goals and efficiencies, but also results to an immediate loss in earnings and revenue for the
company.”
(a) A thorough discussion of what NCNS is, was provided under paragraph 2 of this Reply.
Sufficient to say, for any BPO company, mechanisms has been put in place to alleviate and
mitigate any decrease in the number of agents or consultants to prevent any loss of earnings
and revenue for the company. This is exactly where the work force team comes into play.
 (b) Interestingly, the respondent claims loss of earnings and revenue due to the complainant’s
absence without substantiating or submitting any evidence to prove such a statement. In the
same vein as stated in paragraph 3 of this Reply, making verbose and grandiose statements
does not necessarily make those statements true. The burden of proof lies in the party
claiming such a statement and unfortunately, such proof or evidence is sorely lacking from
the respondent.

II. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be issued declaring

the complainant has been ILLEGALLY DISMISSED by the respondents.

FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents be ordered to pay or issue to the
complainant, as the case may be:

(a) BACKWAGES from the date of her illegal dismissal on August 11, 2017 up to the time she
is REINSTATED to her former position without loss of seniority and other benefits.

(b) MORAL DAMAGES of P500,000.00.

(c) EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P500,000.00

(d) Legal fees of Ten Percent of Damages AWARDED.

(e) Her CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT whether or not she is reinstated.

FINALLY, the complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just
and equitable under the premises.

Quezon City, January 25, 2018.

ANALYN V. TORRES
Complainant
Maple St., Greenwoods Executive Village,
Cainta, Rizal, Philippines.