FACTS

1. On January 29, 2018, Complainant was hired by Respondent as

Management Trainee with a starting salary of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00) per month and was given the main task of
calling target customers or potential clients in order to
understand the process;

2. In April 2018, Complainant was promoted to Campaign Manager

and her salary was increased to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00) per month. As Campaign Manager, Complainant’s
main responsibility was to monitor and supervise the agents and
their activities in her team;

3. In May 2018, Complainant was instructed by Respondent’s Client

Services Manager Suzette Catacutan [hereinafter CATACUTAN
for brevity] to start calling clients, which is the duty of an Account
Manager and not of a Campaign Manager;

4. In June 2018, Complainant was given two client accounts;

5. In August 2018, Complainant was given regular employment

status and appointed as Account Manager with a basic salary of
Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) per month and an
allowance of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) per month or a
total of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000) per month;

6. As Account Manager, Complainant took over all the accounts of

former Account Manager Shelline Ates as well as the latter’s
agents and campaign managers;

7. On or about October 4, 2018, CATACUTAN informed

Complainant that the company Vice President, Jaime Garcia
[hereinafter GARCIA for brevity] wanted to transfer her as
Recruitment Specialist;

8. On or about October 5, 2018, CATACUTAN sent an instruction

via email for a “transition” from October 8 to 19 during which
Complainant was to introduce all her clients to Account Manager
Christine May Pelino and that the latter shall have access to
Complainant’s email;
9. On or about October 7, 2018, Complainant talked to GARCIA
and the latter assured the former that there will be no changes in
her salary when she is reassigned as Recruitment Specialist;

10. However, on or about October 10, 2018, GARCIA said that there
will be changes in Complainant’s salary because he does not
want to raise eyebrows, and that her basic salary will be reduced
to Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00) per month while
the allowance will be reduced to Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00), or a total of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00) per month, which is lower by Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) than her present salary;

11. On or about October 16, 2018, Respondent’s HR/Office

Administrator Estrelita Datoy [hereinafter DATOY for brevity]
talked to Complainant and gave the latter two choices: (a)
Complainant will submit a resignation letter so that a new
contract will be prepared for her new position as Recruitment
Specialist, or (b) Complainant will “undergo process.”
Complainant did not state her choice;

12. On or about October 19, 2018, DATOY told Complainant to

forget about her reassignment as Recruitment Specialist
because there was a client complaint and that she will have to
“undergo process”;

13. Complainant continued working as Account Manager and kept

calling old clients and making follow-ups; however, Complainant
was now excluded from company updates, reminders, and
emails;

14. On or about November 6, 2018, a memorandum designated as

“Class D Memo (Dismissal)” signed by CATACUTAN and
DATOY was issued to Complainant, citing previous memos
regarding non-completion of a job within a specified time and
client complaints. Said memorandum also cited Complainant for
insubordination for refusing to sign documents, and gave
Complainant five (5) days from receipt to explain why the penalty
of dismissal should not be imposed;

15. On November 9, 2018, Complainant submitted a written

explanation which was received by DATOY on the same date;
16. Such written explanation was four (4) pages long and
comprehensively answered all the charges, stating, among
others, that the document she was accused of refusing to sign
was a Class D Memo on client complaints and that the reason
she did not sign it was that she was not yet given a copy of the
actual recording of the complaint when the memo was issued to
her; and that when she was finally able to listen to the recording
after a few days, she found that such recording did not mention
her by name or even by designation, but rather referred to a
“team” which she was not handling;

17. On or about November 13, 2018, an administrative hearing was

conducted in the presence of DATOY and CATACUTAN in which
Complainant’s written explanation was read. However, no
comment was made by Respondent’s officers;

18. On or about November 14, 2018, a one-page pro-forma Notice of

Dismissal was issued by DATOY to Complainant which clearly
did not take into consideration the valid defenses raised by
Complainant in her written explanation.

[Kamo na lang expound ani nga argument: Complainant was illegally

terminated because there was no just cause for termination. The two-
notice rule was not properly observed because the second notice did
not actually consider all circumstances particularly those thoroughly
discussed in Complainant’s explanation letter.]