Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION SEVENTH DIVISION @ormerly Fourth Division) Cebu City ARLYN BOCANEGRA, : Complainant,-APPELLANT, NLRC CASE NO. VAC-03-000098-19 SRAB CASE NO. VII-04-0059-18-D ~versus- QUALFON PHILS., INC. ET. AL, Respondent-APPELLEES. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT APPELLANT-Complainant, through counsel, unto this Honorable commission, most respectfully states: 1 ‘That on 7 May 2019, the undersigned was furnished a copy of the DECISION of the Labor Arbiter dated 27 March 2019, hence, this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, is filed within the reglementary period; 2. That the pertinent portions of the subject Decision steted: “xxx An employer is free to regulate all aspects of employment. It may make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of its employees which become part of the contract of employment provided they are made known to the employee.” =XXX Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company’s business, since the failure to faithfully comply with the company rules and regulations is considered to be a just cause in terminating one’s employment.The Court has ruled that: ‘Infraction of the company rules and regulation which is akin to serious misconduct is a just cause for termination of employment recognized under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code which states that: ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer ~ An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (@) Serious misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, wilful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Xxx" On 14 February 2018, respondent received an e-mail from its client, Tracfone, on the released call report WE 021118. This included complainant's name with fifteen released calls. Upon investigation, operations found that out of the fifteen, only seven interactions were valid and the eight were unaccounted released calls.” ak ‘An administrative hearing took place on 23, February 2018, The minutes thereof, encapsulated in the case summary and which are undisputed, tell us that: 006 3, Respondent Arlyn Bocanegra explained that her infraction was due to high call volume. She shared that CRS (sic) only have 21 nds A‘ After call Work) to document what transpired during the call. Also. in most cases, the system is lagged. She suspected that she may have failed to log some of her interactions inthe 7. Shift Manager was confused why the respondent failed to provide documentation for each account when QAAs have been educating agents on how to multitask during the call, It has been the practice by CSRs to create an initial documentationduring the call and save the same after the call ended. To her, 20 seconds should be enough to transfer the documentation from the notepad to the interaction field and a few notes to document why the call was released. 8. The respondent reasoned that it was very difficult to fk is whi s_are las fe admitted that she indeed released cails in accordance with the solic’ it tual sl ilo cument the same. Sh further admitted that she did not share her difficulty in creating documentation to_her immediate supervisor because everyone especially CSRs have the same challenges.” sS onc: 11, Repondent maintained that the TAS tool was lagged which prevents her from creating an interaction, Nevertheless, she admitted that she failed to comply her responsibility which requires her to create a documentation for each released call.” HEX, The foregoing, to us, constitute substantial evidence of complainant's infractions; hence, there is just cause to warrant her dismissal. Respondent effected the same only after due notice and hearing, complying with the standards of procedural due process. Thus, the concurrence of the two-fold requirements for a valid dismissal in this case cannot be disputed.” “XAX It is true that her February 2017 violation was for a different violation of the operations rules and guidelines (Auto Fail Procedure) AF-5: Transferring calls to any extension without prior notification to the customer and AF-6: Nat routing/escalating issues properly or no resolution provided at all.” The similarity between the two infractions, releasing calls without proper documeniation, cannot be ignored. We disagree, therefore, that the two violations are unidentical and unrelated and uphold the Labor Arbiter’s finding of a repetition of the violation. Finally, it is inconsequential that respondent did not suffer any actual damage. While damage aggravates the charges, its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee’s liability. We 2