REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
Calamba City

JONATHAN C. CIPRIANO,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC NCR RAB IV Case No.1000051-22

QUANTRICS ENTERPRISES INC.,

Respondents.
x---------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Comes now complainant unto this Honorable office most respectfully

submit this position paper, to wit:

THE PARTIES

Complainant Jonathan C. Cipriano, Filipino Citizen, of legal age and

a resident of 34 Matthew St., Filinvest II heights Brgy., Bagons Silang
Quezon City, where he can be served with this Honorable Office’s
summons and other legal processes.

Respondent Quantrics on the other hand is a domestic corporation

duly organized and licensed under the Philippine laws is business process
outsourcing entity. It may be served with decisions, orders and notices at
4th floor SM San Mateo, San Mateo Rizal.

Individual respondents Alexia Hamel, Dennis Huard, Matthew

Conway, Angelo Patricio, Emmanuel John Manuel is impleaded being the
corporate officers with power to decide in the removal of its employees and
is responsible for the forced separation of the complainant from the
company.

1
 PREFATORY STATEMENT

THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, BACKWAGES
SEPARATION PAY, OVERTIME PAY, REST DAY PAY
AND MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On April 10, 2019 I was hired as level 1 technical support

representative with a basic salary of Php 19,800.00 plus allowance of Php
2,200.00 or a total of Php 22,000.00.

2. Sometime in December 2019 after eight (8) months and

becoming a regular employee, I was recognized as one of the fiber tech
Allstar San Mateo (Top 10 percent global ranking) and was awarded a
monetary compensation of 500 Canadian dollars.

3. On March 20, 2021 I was promoted to level 2 technical

support and was transferred to handle the account of Atlantic Field
Services with an increase in basic salary in the amount of Php 20, 840.01
plus allowance of Php 2,200.00 and Php 3,000.00 skill allowance for a total
of Php 26,040.01.

4. Sometime in July 2021 I was recognized as part of the top

20 agents for Atlantic Field services (Quantrics Ranking) and was honored
a total of 250 Canadian Dollars.

5. On December 6, 2021 I was again promoted as

probationary/ training to specialist IT service Desk. From Q05 rank to Q15
rank from December 6, 2021 – June 5, 2022, with a basic salary of Php
21,360.01 plus Php 2,200.00 and Php 3,000.00 skill allowance for a total of
Php 26,560.01.

6. My promotion to specialist IT service desk came in the

form of an email notification from Charlotte De Villa, Senior Recruiter
Photocopy of the email is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

7. Prior and during my promotion to Specialist IT service

desk, I was not informed of the standard by which the company will

2
measure my performance for permanent position. No metrics qualification
or target scored card was given. As a matter of fact, when I approached my
immediate superior Mr. Emmanuel John “EJ” Manuel, the latter advised
me to just search Youtube about the job and its description. I have been
continuously requesting for the specific job description as per company
standard including the metrics and target score cards so I can personally
measure my performance and ensure that it is within company standard.
Unfortunately, my request fell on deaf ears and is deliberately ignored.

8. Sometime in March of 2022, I received an email from one

of the Sr. IT specialists Jethmark Tigolo and my former Operations Team
Leader Gerard Davis about a certain ticket that was mishandle by Ardaniel
Santos. Mr. Emmanuel John Manuel aggressively reach out to me blaming
me to the fault of Mr. Ardaniel. I explained that I didn’t do anything wrong
about the issue, and that I’m just relaying the type of assistance that I have
been provided for together. That incident, though it was not my fault was
blamed on me and resulted a negative impact from my end.

9. On May 4, 2022, Mr. Emmanuel requested me to do a

screenshare so he can see how I do my work. At first, he mentioned that
that I’m doing the right pattern however at the end of the conversation he
blamed me “hinde may na dradrag ka talaga jan” without further
explaining where I made a mistake. Tired and exhausted I let it passed and
continue to look into youtube about the proper way to perform my work.

10. On May 11, 2022, at 9:30-10 PM I received a calendar

invite informing me that Mr. Emmanuel and Mr. Ardaniel Santos have tips
on how to properly approach my work. Hoping that this is now my chance
to be properly coach and guided by my superior, I asked about the tips
unfortunately Mr. Emmanuel mentioned that I should use YOUTUBE for
references in using Excel. Frustrated and embarrassed by the situation I’m
again left on my own and just relied on youtube.

11. June 1 2022, 10:30PM - 11PM MNL I received another

calendar Invite where Mr. Emmanuel berated me and said “hinde ako
maturuan lage na lang daw rason ko hindi ko alam. I told him that I have
been doing my best with the resources I have and the fact of lack of
support from him. I simply requested for him to teach me and guide me
being my supervisor, instead of doing a coaching he replied “hindi mo ba
na realize na may mga ginagawa din ang kasama mo?”.

12. June 7, 2022. 1:00 AM – 2:00 AM MNL another calendar

invite was sent to me. During this meeting Mr. Emmanuel state that he is
not confirming me due to skill issues. I reason out that I would have done

3
better if only he provided me with the coaching and assistance as a
supervisor is expected to do. I again reiterated my performance evaluation
and score card but Mr. Emmanuel did not provide any instead he asked me
to submit a letter requesting the company to extend my probationary status
for Specialist IT.

13. A Personal Action Notice (PAN) dated June 3, 2022 was

served to me on June 10, 2022 informing me that I failed to qualify as
Specialist IT service Desk (photocopy of the PAN is hereto attached as
Annex “B”). No performance evaluation or scored card was presented and
my performance was not evaluated within the six (6) months training
period. Consequently, I was demoted back to agent position without
receiving any performance evaluation.

14. Aggrieved by the treatment I received and for the lack of

support and transparency, I reached out to Jade Paredes one of the HR
consultants of Quantrics. Ms. Paredes informed me that they have the
prerogative decision to acknowledge and review if the non-confirmation is
valid even though that the non-confirmation takes place after the said
dates. In the event the candidate reaches more than the allotted dates (6
months) there is “NO” process for the company to default a certain
candidate. The current position is also not Probationary due to its title
Temporary/Acting.

15. Demotivated and frustrated after six grueling months of

doing my task alone and relying to Youtube. I realized that the company
has blatantly circumvented the probationary law by using words such as
“Temporay/Acting”.

16. Things are getting worst every day as I’m being

pressured to work on different schedule despite of the fact that I presented
a medical certificate where my Doctor recommended that it would be
beneficial for me to work on fixed schedule as I’m suffering from
uncontrolled hypertension that could possibly lead to cardiac arrest.
Photocopy of the medical certificate is hereto attached as Annex “C”)

17. I requested our HR compensation and benefits for a

temporary accommodation until my medical condition becomes stable. But
my request was denied and was informed that I only need to take up
vitamins and have a healthy lifestyle.

18. In addition to this I was being forced to render an

overtime work on my rest day even if there is no need for me to work as
there is sufficient manpower to handle the needs of the account.

4
 19. On September 16, 2022 I was placed on preventive
suspension without first informing me the reason thereof or what
infractions did I violate. There was no notice to explain given to me or an
administrative hearing to clarify any concerns.

20. On September 28, 2022 I requested a copy of my COE.

However, the same was denied for no apparent reason. Photocopy of the
email denial is hereto attached as Annex “D”.

21. October 1, 2022 without prior discussion or notice

respondents company removed my skill allowance of Php 3,000.00. I
protested the same and even requested the intervention of the HR to no
avail.

22. On October 12, 2022 with no one to turn to I filed another

SENA to seek assistance on how we can resolve our issues and return back
to have a stress-free working environment. Unfortunately, management’s
hostility towards me continue and it became more aggressive that it really
affected my work as I can no longer concentrate. That my self-esteem is so
low that I’m beginning to question my ability as an employee.

23. After giving considerable thought on my employment

and the treatment I’m receiving from my superiors, I decided with a heavy
heart to resign due to the presence of discrimination, harassment, and
bullying in the workplace. As such on November 12, 2022 I submitted my
resignation letter photocopy of which is hereto attached as Annex “E”.

ISSUES

The complainant interposes the following issues for the consideration of

this Honorable office.
I

WHETHER OR NOT THE

COMPLAINANT WAS
CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED BY
HEREIN RESPONDENT

II

5
 WHETHER OR NOT
COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO
SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES
AND OTHER MONEY CLAIMS

ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSIONS

THE COMPLAINANT WAS

CONSTRUCTIVELY
DISMISSED BY THE
RESPONDENT

The crux of this complaint can be summarized as to whether I was

constructively dismissed when respondent reverted me back to agent
position and the harassment, maltreatment that I suffered which eventually
pushed me to tender my forced resignation.

Case law defines constructive dismissal as the 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. It is also called as a dismissal in disguise or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. The Supreme
Court held that the burden is on the employer to prove that the transfer
or demotion of an employee was a valid exercise of management
prerogative and was not a mere subterfuge to get rid of an employee.
Otherwise, the employer will be found liable for constructive dismissal
Sumifru (Philippines) Corporation v. Baya, G.R. No. 188269, April 17,
2017.

The case of Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp. G.R. No. 198534, July
3, 2013 state that:

In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of

proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for
valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.
Particularly, for a transfer not to be considered a constructive
dismissal, the employer must be able to show that such transfer is
not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor
does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries,

6
 privileges and other benefits. Failure of the employer to overcome
this burden of proof, the employee's demotion shall no doubt be
tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.

In this regard, the procedural due process required by law on

dismissals is also applicable to demotions; as demotions similarly affect the
employment of a worker whose right to continued employment, under the
same terms and conditions, is also protected by law. Moreover, considering
that demotion is, like dismissal, also a punitive action, the employee being
demoted should as in cases of dismissals, be given a chance to contest the
same (Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
118045, January 2, 1997). Even the employer's right to demote an employee
requires the observance of the twin-notice requirement (Floren Hotel v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 155264, May 6, 2005.).

From a review of the records and facts of the case, it is evident that I
suffered a demotion. Demotion, as defined by case law, is a situation in
which an employee is relegated to a subordinate or less important position
constituting a reduction to a lower grade or rank, with a corresponding
decrease in duties and responsibilities, and usually accompanied by a
decrease in salary (Isabela-I Electric Coop. Inc., v. Del Rosario, Jr., G.R.
No. 226369, July 17, 201934). This is exactly what happened to me. Here, I
was already promoted to Specialist IT, albeit on a probationary status; and
that I was reverted to my former, undisputably lower, position as a
customer service representative. Further, my skill allowance of P3,000.00
was withdrawn along with his reversion.

To emphasize, my demotion was not in accordance with law and

cannot even hide under the guise of management prerogative as
respondents did not provide a single ground or justification for my
demotion. It is best to remember that at the time I assume my post I was
never informed of the metrics that I need to accomplish or the scored that I
need to maintain. No support of whatever kind was given to me and was
only directed to watch Youtube for guidance.

Clearly, there was no justifiable reason for my demotion to consider

it as valid exercise of management prerogative. Consequently, my
demotion including the harassment and maltreatment that followed is
tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.

While respondents may argue that my promotion was not yet

perfected and that I failed to qualify as a Specialist IT, it is manifest that
there were no clear standards set to upgrade my position as Specialist IT
regular. Even the HR consultants of Quantrics Ms. Jade Paredes upon

7
inquiry state that; “Temporary/Acting.“ NO process for the company to
default a certain candidate.

Also, prior to my demotion, respondents should have afforded me

the chance to be heard. However, there was nothing in the records to show
that I was ever given the chance to contest my demotion. Further,
respondents never proved compliance with the twin-notice requirement.

Assessing the facts and evidence on which the Honorable Office

might arrive at a conclusion that I was not constructively dismissed, it is to
be find that the same is arbitrary. Contrariwise, from the foregoing
disquisition, it appears that I was constructively dismissed since
respondents failed to discharge its burden to prove that my demotion was
a valid exercise of management prerogative.

In fact, in the respondents have not yet provided the reason for my
demotion and there was no evidence to establish the validity of the
demotion. Thus, it is correctly to be assumed that I was constructively
dismissed together with the fact of harassment and intimidation during my
employment. Respondent miserably failed to established the following: a)
the justification for my demotion; and b) there is no documentary evidence
of my Failure. On this score alone, I must be declared constructively
dismissed.

Even if we were to take cognizance of respondents’ argument and

evidence, there was a dearth of relevant evidence to establish that there
was actual proof of my failure to qualify for the permanent position of
Specialist IT. Also, it was not proven that my performance was
unsatisfactory. Finally, I was not properly informed of the reason, despite
repeated demands of my performance for my demotion.

Complainant is entitled to backwages,

separation pay, and moral and exemplary
damages.
Article 294 (formerly 279) of the Labor Code provides that an
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. If
reinstatement is no longer feasible given the strained relations between
petitioners and respondent, the award of separation pay equivalent to one

8
month's salary for every year of service was just and reasonable as an
alternative to reinstatement. (Diwa Asia Publishing, Inc. v. De Leon, G.R.
No. 203587, August 13, 2018).

Being constructively dismissed, it follows that I am entitled to

backwages and reinstatement. However, consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence, with all due respect to this Honorable office it is deem more
judicious of this Honorable Office to award separation pay rather than
reinstatement. This is with due consideration of my demotion as well as
my willingness to receive separation pay per my prayer in this Complaint in
lieu of reinstatement.

As regards the basis for the award of backwages, I would like to

most respectfully state that the settled rule laid in the case of United
Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (G.R. No. 201018, July 12, 2017) state that "[t]he
base figure in the determination of full backwages is fixed at the salary
rate received by the employee at the time he was illegally dismissed"
unqualified by any deductions and increases. Specifically, my backwages
shall be computed from the time of my illegal dismissal the date I was
informed that I will be demoted to my former position as customer service
representative. The amount of backwages should include not only the basic
salary but also the regular allowances being received, such as the
emergency living allowances and the 13th month pay mandated by the
law. The purpose for this is to compensate the worker for what he has lost
because of his dismissal, and to set the price or penalty on the employer for
illegally dismissing his employee

Meanwhile, my separation pay shall be equivalent to one month's

salary for every year of service reckoned from the time of my demotion
and forced dismissal. In this connection, we find the case of Dumapis v.
Lepanto G.R. No. 204060, September 15, 2020 is enlightening. Notably, the
Supreme Court ruled therein that "the award of backwages and/or
separation pay due to illegally dismissed employees shall include all salary
increases and benefits granted under the law and other government
issuances, [ c ]ollective [b]argaining [a]greements, employment contracts,
established company policies and practices, and analogous sources which
the employees would have been entitled to had they not been illegally
dismissed." In said case, the Supreme Court pertinently ordered therein
employer to pay its employees their backwages and separation pay based
on latter's salary rates at the time of their termination, inclusive of
guaranteed salary increases and other benefits and bonuses which
petitioners were entitled to receive under the law and other government
issuances, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts,

9
established company policies and practices, and analogous sources had
they not been illegally dismissed.

Applying the ruling in United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. and Dumapis

cases, my backwages and separation pay shall be based on my salary rates
at the time of my separation or my salary as a probationary Specialist IT.
Both the separation pays and backwages shall be computed up to the
finality of the decision as it is at that point that the employment
relationship is effectively ended.

After my demotion respondents created a hostile working

environment against me by subjecting me to numerous call outs which
have no basis and even blamed me for the mistake committed by other
agents. Not content with the emotional and psychological trauma that
they’ve inflicted, respondents resorted to financial pressure by way of
removing my skill allowance with no basis at all.

Respondents vendetta started when I first file a SENA complaint

against them (Photocopy of the first SENA complaint is hereto attached as
Annex “F”). I was being forced to work on a schedule which will adversely
affect my health against the advice of my doctors.

In addition to the above, respondents ordered me to work on my rest

day thus eventually removing the one-day rest day I’m entitled with. I was
being forced to rendered overtime work even if there is no urgency and
that there is sufficient manpower to cover the day to day activities.

All of these pressures had created a deep anxiety from my end for the
fear of losing my livelihood of which I depend as I needed it most because
of my wife pregnancy. That I suffered some sleepless nights, or should I
say sleepless days due to the unwarranted pressure being applied to me by
respondents. My wife witnesses my slow deterioration and low morale that
it also affected her that contributes to the premature termination of her
pregnancy.

Moral Damages are recoverable in ILLEGAL DISMISSAL cases AND

only where the ILLEGAL DISMISSAL was attended by bad faith or fraud
or constituted an act oppressive to labor or was done in a manner contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages in ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL cases may be awarded only if the dismissal was effected in
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner (Garcia, 234 SCRA 632).

Bad faith does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It

involves a state of mind dominated by ill will or motive. It implies a

10
conscious and international design to do a wrong act for dishonest purpose
or some moral obliquity. The person claiming moral damages must prove
the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law
always presumes good faith. [Citations omitted] [Justice Puno, Philippine
Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commissions, G.R. No. 132805,
February 2, 1999

All of the above is present in this case, it is clear from the onset that I
was being forced out of the company using highhanded method employed
by here respondents.

Finally, the twin elements of moral and exemplary damages, illegal

termination and bad faith on the part of the respondents are present and
glaring. My demotion was made without a performance evaluation, I was
not given the support I need to perform my work, I was slowly being eased
out of the company by denying my medical request for a fixed schedule
even if it is recommended by my attending physician, the incessant finger
pointing against me and being faulted with the mistake committed by
others, the removal of my skill allowance for no apparent reason.

The Supreme Court further stressed that exemplary damages may

not be recovered where the party involved is not entitled to moral or
compensatory damages. (Dee Hua Liong Electrical Equipment Corp. vs.
Reyes, 145 SCRA 713.).

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that a

judgment of constructive dismissal be made against the respondent and an
award for backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages be
awarded to me.

Such other relief and remedies just and equitable are likewise prayed
for.

11
 February 06, 2023. Quezon City, Philippines.

JONATHAN C. CIPRIANO
Complainant

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION

I, JONATHAN C. CIPRIANO, of legal age, Filipino, after having

been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. I am the complainant in the instant case for constructive

dismissal;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing POSITION

PAPER;

12
 3. I have read its contents and the same are true and correct of
my own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records;

4. I have not theretofore filed nor commenced any suit

involving the same subject matter or the same issues before
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other Courts,
Tribunal or Quasi-Judicial Agency to the best of my
knowledge and if should I learn that a similar actions or
proceedings have been filed or is pending, I will undertake
to report that fact to this Honorable Office within five (5)
days from knowledge of the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___ day

of February 2023 at Quezon City.

JONATHAN C. CIPRIANO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____ day of
________ 2023. Affiant exhibited to me her/his government issued ID with
No. _______________ issued on ______________ in ______________.

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2023

Copy furnished:

QUANTRICS ENTERPRISES INC

4th floor SM San Mateo, San Mateo Rizal

13