Deletion of Backwages
addressed, but insisted that the concern will be best resolved by another
109 Ryan Magno v. Sutherland Global Services Phil. Inc.
April 23, 2018 | En Banc. |
Doctrine: It is an elementary principle in labor law that an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to reinstatement and payment of full backwages. However, in
certain cases, "the Court has carved out an exception to the foregoing rule and
thereby ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages on
account of the following: (i) the fact that the dismissal of the employee would be
too harsh of a penalty; and (ii) that the employer was in good faith in terminating
the employee."
Facts:
Sutherland Global Services Philippines, Inc. (Sutherland) is a business process
outsourcing (BPO) company catering to international clients.
On July 18, 2011, Sutherland hired Magno as a consultant (call center agent).
Thereafter, on August 3, 2012, Magno was promoted as a senior consultant and
was assigned as one of the subject matter experts of the AT&T U-Verse Blue
Account. Among his functions as a subject matter expert were to take over
escalation calls and supervise the team in the absence of the manager.
On November 28, 2016, Adryan Mark Cavita (Cavita), a call-center agent under
Magno's supervision received a call from an AT&T subscriber, who was
complaining about the bills he received from AT&T. Unable to resolve the
concerns of the customer, Cavita sought the assistance of Magno. Magno took
over the call.
During Magno's conversation with the caller, he informed the latter that the
concern may best be addressed to a different department, for which, he will
transfer the call. Apparently, this suggestion irritated the customer, who raised his
voice and suddenly became furious with Magno.
Magno pacified the caller and explained to him that his concern is being
department.
Meanwhile, in the middle of the call, Magno had to take breaks from talking with
the irate customer, as he had to address the questions and concerns of the other
agents under his supervision.
Angered by this, the customer demanded to talk with the manager. Magno
explained that there was no manager present at the moment. The caller
threatened to file a complaint against Magno with the AT&T President, to which
Magno responded saying, "thank you, I'll be more than happy to wait for that."
On December 4, 2012, Magno received a Memorandum dated December 3, 2012
from Sutherland, indicating that it received a complaint against Magno from a
client named Tony Melhelm (Melhelm), thru the Office of the President of AT&T.
Melhelm complained that Magno allegedly placed his call on hold for 20 minutes.
Consequently, Magno was accused of violating Section 1, Title 3 of the Handbook
on Employee Discipline, for "shouting at a customer or uttering invectives,
obscene, rude or sarcastic remarks and disrespectful or abrasive comments or
consistently interrupting the customer in a rude manner." Magno was thus ordered
to submit his written explanation to the complaint.
In the meantime, Magno was removed from being a supervisor in the AT&T U-
Verse account, and was given another administrative task.
On March 6, 2013, Magno received a Notice of Decision stating that he was found
guilty of violating the company's code of conduct, as his actions were deemed to
be unacceptable. As a result, his services were terminated on even date.
Aggrieved by Sutherland's decision, Magno 􏰂led a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Sutherland.
The LA rendered a decision finding Magno illegally dismissed – reinstatement +
backwages.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision but decided to delete the award on
backwages.
The CA likewise affirmed.
Issue: protection shall not equate to coddling a wayward employee. Should an employee
W/N backwages should be awarded in favor of Ryan Magno be likewise found guilty of some form of misconduct or transgression, the
appropriate penalty shall likewise be meted to correct the wrongs committed.
Held:
NO. Penalty of dismissal would be too harsh; but the employee was not entirely
faultless – reinstatement sans backwages.
Dispositive

In the case at bar, the NLRC and the CA were correct in finding that Magno was
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly,
not entirely faultless for uttering the sarcastic remark "thank you, I'll be more than
the Decision dated July 14, 2017, and Resolution dated November 20, 2017,
happy to wait for that;" and in placing an on-going call on hold for a lengthy period
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144719, are AFFIRMED in toto.
of time. In fact, Magno did not deny committing such acts, albeit offering the
defense that the statement was innocuous, and that he placed the call on hold for
less than 20 minutes.
Notes
Indeed, these acts do not constitute a just cause for dismissal. However, being a
senior consultant of a call center office, Magno was expected to exercise utmost
courteousness and civility. Although the statements may seem harmless and
innocuous, it must be remembered that for a customer service company like
Sutherland, its agents are expected to be as polite and as courteous as they can be.
Call center offices pride on the "excellent customer service of call center agents,"
which is the very lifeblood of a BPO industry. Agents are expected to exert utmost
patience and temperance in responding to calls, and exert their best effort in
resolving their customers' problems and concerns. In fact, more was expected of
Magno, who was not just an ordinary agent, but a senior consultant. His acts would
not only reflect badly on the company, but would likewise serve as a poor example
to other agents.

Thus, applying the aforementioned jurisprudential tenets to the case at bar, the
Court finds that the penalty of dismissal was too severe a penalty for Magno's rude
actuations, but at the same time, Magno was not entirely blameless. Thus,
Sutherland was in good faith when it dismissed Magno for violating its company
policy. These concurring circumstances trigger the application of the exception to
the rule on backwages as enunciated in the above-cited cases. Consequently, the
Court finds it proper to accord the same disposition and thus directs the deletion
of backwages in favor of Magno.

Verily, in illegal dismissal cases, Courts are tasked to ensure that an employee shall
not be dismissed except for just or authorized causes. Care should be exercised by
employers in imposing the ultimate penalty of dismissal on its erring employees.
The punishment meted against an errant employee should be commensurate with
the act, conduct or omission imputed to him. At the same time however, this