23 November 2020

RE: EXPLANATION LETTER

Dear:
Greetings!
This has reference to the Notice to Explain sent to me by this office which I
received on 20 November 2020. In the said notice I was made to explain
why no disciplinary action including termination should be taken against me
based on the following allegations:
I. THAT MY LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IS NOT AT PAR WITH THE
COMPANY’S LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY GUIDELINES.

At the outset, it worthy to emphasize that it is our fifth month into

production and I have not received any direct feedback from the
customers complaining about being incompetent or not skilled in the
Cantonese language. The allegation against me lacks a sustainable
basis and the supposition is just a conclusion of fact for there is no
sufficient proof to prove the claim. The result of my QA dated 31 August
2020 reveals that I got ninety percent (90%). Verily, I have met the
quality that the company has set and not to mention the satisfaction I
delivered to the customer during the call. I understand that I incidentally
got seventy-five percent (75%) in my QA dated 02 September 2020. It
should be noted that it was neither shown in the result of the evaluation
from the Quality Analyst that the main factor of the low score was my
language. It was not even mentioned in the said QA. Additionally, we
were still familiarizing ourselves with how the different processes work.
So there was no chance of catching-up and discussing goals with our
supervisor.
While it is true that during a metric review with my Team Leader (TL),
XXXX, it was raised that I used the English terms in some of my
conversations with my customer. It should be recalled that we were
informed that we can speak in English whenever a customer requests to
use English as a medium of communication. No hard and fast rule
enjoins a representative from speaking in English especially when a
customer manifests his/her intention to speak in English. As long as a
representative can deliver the message across and the customer is
comfortable and understand the message, the same is acceptable.
Further, there were several emails from the higher operations with a
singular judgment that my Cantonese language is incompetent based on
my calls that they randomly monitored. The emails unanimously held
that my Cantonese language does not meet the minimum standard that
the company has set. I cannot deny the fact the used English terms
during the call that they monitored but it is worthy to note that the use of
English terms was with the customer’s concurrence and it was done so
that the can have a grasp of the information being communicated as

Page 1 of 4
 there were terms that cannot be translated into pure Cantonese
language. Thus, I cannot be faulted for using some English terms during
the call as there were instances that do not require full Cantonese
language for the customer to better understand the concept.
Furthermore, I and my TL, XXXX have agreed that we will continue to
talk and converse in the Cantonese language as part of our action plan.
This is anchored on the identical findings that some of the
representatives used a language other than Cantonese during the call.
This is also the very same opportunity that other representatives have
during the call. It was agreed that the members of the team will also
converse in the Cantonese language even not engaged in a call. The
intention of my TL in coming up with an action plan may be good and for
the betterment of the team but the same was not properly executed
since the action plan as agreed upon i.e. speaking the Cantonese
language was not complied with by my TL as she speaks in English and
Tagalog in the production.

II. THAT A CLIENT ESCALATION WAS RECEIVED FROM

XXXALLEGEDLY DUE TO IMPROPER INVESTIGATION AND
COMMUNICATION MADE TO THE CUSTOMER’S CONCERN
RESULTING IN INCORRECT RESOLUTION.

I would like to emphasize that the issue of the customer that resulted in
an escalation is new and unusual in the production. The ultimate
allegation posited against me was that I committed fraud during the call
which I vehemently object and deny the same.
It should be recalled that during the call I have asked assistance from
the different tenured representatives for a possible and appropriate
resolution being new to the account and industry unfortunately, my
request for assistance went unheeded as they can’t come up with an
appropriate resolution. Being new and unfamiliar with the concern of the
customer I asked my Team Leader XXX for an appropriate resolution
which I eventually relayed the said suggested resolution to the
customer.
Basic is the rule in this industry that in case of doubt as to the right
resolution, it is advised to ask for assistance. We were informed during
training that when confronted with difficult and complicated concerns
from the customer, we should ask for assistance to our supervisor to
come up with an appropriate resolution, which is exactly what I did
during the call. We were assured during training to focus more on the
quality, less on the numbers, and learning where they have also
encouraged committing mistakes for us to grow.
I cannot be faulted for some misunderstanding and miscommunication
between me and the customer because even my TL was not sure of the
proper resolution. Moreover, no one in his right mind will put himself into
an unwarranted ordeal like committing fraud knowing fully well that his
treasured property like his employment, as enshrined under the
Constitution will be curtailed. I am a firm believer in character
development. To insist, I do not and will not commit any fraud that will
compromise my integrity and that of the company.

Page 2 of 4
III. THAT MY EMPLOYMENT WITH MAY BE TERMINATED BASED ON
ARTICLE 297 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

To begin with, my employment with Intouch Contact Centers should not

be severed. Article 297 cannot be applied in my case as it was neither
shown nor proven that the grounds therein are directly attributable to
my fault or negligence.
In a case the Supreme Court faulted an employer for unlawfully
terminating its employee and ordered the payment of damages in favor
of the employee. The Court was emphatic, to wit:
“Xxx Misconduct is defined as the "transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character,
and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. In order for serious
misconduct to justify dismissal, these requisites must be present: (a) it must
be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties,
showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
employer, and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. On
the other hand, to be considered as a just cause for terminating an employee's
services, "insubordination" requires that the orders, regulations or instructions
of the employer or representative must be (a) reasonable and lawful; (b)
sufficiently known to the employee; (c) in connection with the duties
which the employee has been engaged to discharge; and (d) the
employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the
willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. 1
(Emphasis supplied)

My act of using English terms in some of my calls especially when

requested by the customers might be inconsistent with the lawful order
of the company but not a serious and willful one as to cost me of my
livelihood. Be that as it may, such disobedience cannot be deemed to
depict a wrongful attitude on my part, because it was prompted by my
desire to carry out my duties as a customer service representative to the
satisfaction of my customer. It must be stressed again that I was
constrained to speak some English terms during the call because of the
customer’s request. Thus, I cannot be faulted for that.
The same jurisprudence further provides that:
“Xxx As a just cause for termination of employment, on the other hand, the
neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well. Gross
negligence means an absence of that diligence that a reasonably
prudent man would use in his own affairs, and connotes want of care in
the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated
failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances.  A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a
just cause for the dismissal of the employee.” (Emphasis supplied)

Suffice it to say that by no stretch of reasoning can the use of English

terms in some of my calls especially when requested by a customer
imputed against me be collectively considered as gross and habitual
negligence. In citing that my language proficiency is not at par with the
company’s language proficiency guidelines as ground for my termination

1
RICARDO G. SY and HENRY B. ALIX vs. NEAT, INC., BANANA PEEL and PAUL VINCENT NG, G.R.
No. 213748, November 27, 2017

Page 3 of 4
 of employment, the company cannot also ignore the other factors where
I was rated ninety percent (90%) in my QA not to mention the
commendation calls from my customers.
Further, the same case law also discussed that the termination and
imposition of imposable sanction against an employee is governed by
the Principle of totality of infractions. The Supreme Court went on to
state that:

“Xxx In determining the sanction imposable on an employee, the

employer may consider the former's past misconduct and previous
infractions. Also known as the principle of totality of infractions, the
Court explained such concept in Merin v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., thus:

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during

the period of employment shall be considered in determining the
penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses
committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately.”
(Emphasis supplied)

A review of my alleged violation reveals that the company, other than

several emails from the higher operations with singular judgment that my
Cantonese language is incompetent based on my calls that they
randomly monitored and emails unanimously held that my Cantonese
language does not met the minimum standard that the company has set,
the company failed to prove with substantial evidence that the totality of
my infractions allegedly committed constitutes as a just cause for my
dismissal under the Labor Code.
Significantly, the Supreme Court discussed in the case above-
mentioned that:
“Xxx To be lawful, the cause for termination must be a serious and grave
malfeasance to justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood. This is merely
in keeping with the spirit of our Constitution and laws which lean over
backwards in favor of the working class, and mandate that every doubt must
be resolved in their favor. After all, an employment is not merely a
contractual relationship, since in the life of most workers it may spell
the difference of whether or not a family will have food on their table,
roof over their heads and education for their children.” (Emphasis
supplied)

Clearly, my employment with Intouch Contact Centers should not be

terminated based on the above-mentioned reasons. Lastly, I am
amenable to any settlement or conference regarding my case as the
need arises

Thank you for you for considering my explanation letter.

Sincerely,

Intouch Contact Centers Representative

Page 4 of 4