Vcustomer

[margeorie]

---

Guys naa mo update? apil pud bya unta ko sa wave 1 tech. I was able to contact Vcust 2 days ago katong supposed to be TL sa wave 1 nisulti nako nga asta cla floating daw., Gi close sa daw ang office temporarily. Kinsa nagsulti hopefully by May nadayon? Ang gi ingon man gud sa akoa nga whatever account comes first whether tech or CSR una gyud daw mi kay kami man una sign ug contract unsa man gyud kaha claro ani sa? actually gahapon ra ko naka decide ngita sa kog lain option while waiting for Vcustomer to call kay lisud kaau. Apil ko sa mga naka sign ug JO sa TSR nga ni resign pud para sa Vcustomer nya single mom ko with 2 kids. Wala lagi ko gi offeran anang 1 month salary? Kinsa ingon na 3 months pa? dugaya ana oi. Paet kau ron kay wakoy source of income kay g ingnan mi di madayon ang training thursday apr. 7 na gud to nya supposed to be april 11 mi mag start so too late na kau naka resign nako. However, I'm still praying mu push through nani hopefully 1st week or 2nd week of May.

[margeorie]

Guys update nya mo pls. Ang gi ingon nila nako 2 days ago kato naka call ko wait ra gyud daw ta ug tawag. Nya true gyud gi ingon Ms. Cherry nga indefinite. Mao na ambot ani ron....

[luannapie]

Guys update nya mo pls. Ang gi ingon nila nako 2 days ago kato naka call ko wait ra gyud daw ta ug tawag. Nya true gyud gi ingon Ms. Cherry nga indefinite. Mao na ambot ani ron....

ka understand ko nimo sis kay akong bana ingun pud ang na happen. supposedly wave 2 xa sa TSR pero ingun ana pud feedback then giingnan xa sa confidential reason why mao nisabot rapud mi. so now, ngita sa xa lain work in the meantime while waiting sa vcustomer kay among plano anha jud mi nga company. because gikan mngud mi Sykes before unya kaibw jud mi nga in good hands mi kung c cherry durano ang modala. kasabot rapud mi that the company is still a baby nya kaibw mi sa real reason why na on hold to pero confidential lng jud dli pwede isulti.

anyway, while waiting ngita sag lain back up. but if you really want to pursue, keep updated lng ani nga thread kay sure ko mg update jud ko ani nga thread by the time tawgan na akong bana. but i think una ka tawgan kay wave 1 mnka so mg wait pud kos imong update.

[Fronts]

UPDATE:

Ms. Cherry Durano will no longer manage the Cebu operations.

It will be managed by the "BARUBAL" Indianos. Same people who deceived, misled not only Ms. Cherry Durano, but also the people who stood by and believed in her.

One thing is certain at this point, someone will be liable for what has transpired. Ms. Cherry Durano will not let this pass.

I am posting this, not to disparage the said company, as it may still continue to operate under new management, but to clarify the uncertainty that has been brought upon us.

THE TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL!!!!

And for this unfortunate circumstance, I still believe in Ms. Cherry!

[LuckyHermits]

UPDATE:

Ms. Cherry Durano will no longer manage the Cebu operations.

It will be managed by the "BARUBAL" Indianos. Same people who deceived, misled not only Ms. Cherry Durano, but also the people who stood by and believed in her.

One thing is certain at this point, someone will be liable for what has transpired. Ms. Cherry Durano will not let this pass.

I am posting this, not to disparage the said company, as it may still continue to operate under new management, but to clarify the uncertainty that has been poured upon us all.

And for this unfortunate circumstance, I still believe in Ms. Cherry!

To all vCustomer applicants nga naka sign na sa JOB OFFER (contract) and wala naka sugod ug work on the agreed hiring date, you have the right mo reklamo didto sa DOLE vs vCustomer. You have a VALID case for Breach of Contract.


"A contract is simply an arrangement between two or more parties, generally involving a document which, when signed, legally binds one person or group to the accomplishment or execution of a task in exchange for a given amount of money. Once a contract has been signed, the fulfillment of the contract terms is compulsory, by law. If the terms of a contract are not fulfilled, then the party who is not holding up its end of the agreement is said to be in breach of the contract. This is unacceptable and the wronged party can take legal action to enforce the contract terms or seek other forms of compensation."

Read more: How to Write a Breach of Contract Letter | eHow.com How to Write a Breach of Contract Letter | eHow.com

[Fronts]

To all vCustomer applicants nga naka sign na sa JOB OFFER (contract) and wala naka sugod ug work on the agreed hiring date, you have the right mo reklamo didto sa DOLE vs vCustomer. You have a VALID case for Breach of Contract.


"A contract is simply an arrangement between two or more parties, generally involving a document which, when signed, legally binds one person or group to the accomplishment or execution of a task in exchange for a given amount of money. Once a contract has been signed, the fulfillment of the contract terms is compulsory, by law. If the terms of a contract are not fulfilled, then the party who is not holding up its end of the agreement is said to be in breach of the contract. This is unacceptable and the wronged party can take legal action to enforce the contract terms or seek other forms of compensation."

Read more: How to Write a Breach of Contract Letter | eHow.com How to Write a Breach of Contract Letter | eHow.com

Better read your contract guys, if there's something that talks about the company and/or account or project being "co-terminous"...

[Fronts]

Something to read...

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 138780 May 22, 2001

NORBERTO ORCULLO, JR., petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and COORDINATING COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINE ASSITANCE PROGRAM, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Petitioner Norberto A. Orcullo, jr. was hired as Project Manager IV by the Coordinating Council of the Philippine Assistance Program (CCPAP)-BOT Center effective march 11, 1996. His employment was contractual and co-terminous with the said project which was to end on January 30, 2000.1 On September 23, 1996 or six (6) months from his assumption to office, petitioner received a Memorandum, dated September 20, 1996, from one Jorge M. Briones, Assistance Director of CCPAP, terminating petitioner's contractual employment with said agency effective September 30, 1996.2

In a Letter dated September 20, 1996, Undersecretary Francisco F. del Rosario, Executive Director of CCPAP, confirmed petitioner's termination as project manager of CCPAP.

Aggrieved by his dismissal, petitioner appealed the same to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

On April 2, 1997, the respondent CSC issued resolution No. 972309 dismissing petitioner's appeal. The CSC found that:

xxx the appointment of Orcullo is contractual and co-terminous with the Philippine Assistance Program Support Project and that it carries the stipulated condition "Unless terminated sooner." The latter condition has not been qualified by any safeguard. Appellant Orcullo, when he accepted said contractual-co-terminous anytime. He is, thus, not protected by the security of tenure clause of the Constitution. The contract is the law between the parties. And whatever is stipulated therein governs the relationship between the parties. Said stipulations in the contract may include the mode or manner of separations. And the cause therefore includes and is not proscribed to derogatory record, misbehavior or incompetence or hostile attitudes. In the instant case, appellant was separated from the service particularly for unsatisfactory performance. (Underscoring ours)

On the issue of the proper official who should effect such termination, the next lower official who should effect such termination, the next lower official of the Center may do so. In this case, said separation was later validated by the confirmation of the head office.3

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above resolution. On June 17, 1997, the CSC denied said motion in its Resolution No. 973099.

On July 30, 1997, petitioner, through counsel, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

On August 14, 1998, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition in the above entitled case is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the sole issue of whether employees in the public service, regardless of their status of employment, are protected by the tenurial security right embodied in the Constitution.

Petitioner argues that, contrary to the findings of the CSC, the phrase "unless terminated sooner" refers not to the duration of his employment, but the duration of the PAPS support project itself. He claims that since the PAPS project was still ongoing, his services cannot be terminated without just cause and without the observance of due process. He asseverates that even co-terminous employees like himself enjoy security of tenure as embodied in the Constitution.

Petitioner's arguments are bereft of merit.1âwphi1.nêt

It is undisputed that petitioner's employment with CCPAP is contractual and co-terminous in nature. Such a co-terminous employment falls under the non-career service classification of positions in the Civil Service:

Sec. 9. Non-Career Service. - The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance on bases other that those of the usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made. (Underscoring ours)

The Non-Career Service shall include:

xxx

(4) Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available in the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency.

xxx5

Additionally, Section 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides:

Sec. 14. An appointment may also be co-terminous which shall be issued to a person whose entrance and continuity in the service is based on the trust and confidence of the appointing authority or that which is subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his tenure, or limited by the duration of project or subject to the availability of funds. (Underscoring ours)

The co-terminous status may thus be classified as follows:

(1) Co-terminous with the project - when the appointment is co-existent with the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made or subject to the availability of funds for the same;

(2) Co-terminous with the appointing authority - when appointment is co-existent with the tenure of the appointing authority or at his pleasure;(Underscoring ours)

(3) Co-terminous with the incumbent - when the appointment is co-existent with the appointee, in that after the resignation, separation or termination of the services of the incumbent the position shall be deemed automatically abolished; and

(4) Co-terminous with a specific period - appointment is for a specific period and upon expiration and upon thereof, the position is deemed abolished.

A perusal of petitioner's employment contract will reveal that his employment with CCPAP is qualified by the phrase "unless terminated sooner." Thus, while such employment is co-terminous with the PAPS project, petitioner nevertheless serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority as this is clearly stipulated in his employment contract. We agree with the appellate court's interpretation of the phrase "unless terminated sooner" to mean "that his contractual job as Project Manager IV from March 11, 1996 to January 30, 2000 could end anytime before January 30, 2000 if terminated by the other contracting party-employer CCPAP." We quote with approval said court's ruling on the matter, thus:

xxx. The employment contract is written in plain and unambiguous language. With petitioner's stature, he could not have misunderstood it. Petitioner cannot now renege from the stipulation invoking security of tenure under the Constitution and the Civil Service Law. The fact is he belongs to the non-career service whose appointment is co-terminous, meaning his entrance and continuity in the service is based on trust and confidence of the appointing power.6 (underscoring ours)

Granting arguendo that said disputed phrase refers not to the duration of petitioner's employment, but to the project itself, nevertheless, petitioner was validly terminated for cause. The records will show that petitioner garnered an unsatisfactory rating during the probationary period of his employment.7 After due notice, he was subsequently dismissed because of his inability to work with the other staff members of the project and to participate effectively in meetings regarding the project, resulting in loss of trust in him by his superiors. The much can be gleaned form the Memorandum as follows:

This is to confirm my verbal advise to you made last 4 September 1996 regarding your unsatisfactory performance during the probationary period of your contractual employment with the CCPAP BOT Center.

As advised, your inability to work with the other staff in the Center as well as participate in outside meetings are the main reasons for the rating which have resulted in the loss of my confidence in your ability to do your job as a Manager. (Underscoring supplied)

xxx8

Finally, we find petitioner's claim that he was deprived of due process unavailing. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner was informed of his unsatisfactory performance in his job as project manager about two weeks prior to his termination. Thereafter, upon receipt of the memorandum terminating his services, petitioner filed a complaint-appeal to the CSC. When the CSC affirmed his dismissal in its Resolution, dated April 2, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration thereof. Thus, he cannot now claim that he was not given the opportunity to be heard.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Gutierrez, JJ: concur.1âwphi1.nêt

[LuckyHermits]

I have been in the call center industry for more than 10 years. I READ and SIGNED my vCustomer Job Offer. I clearly understand EVERYTHING stipulated in it. I resigned from my previous job believing that this company has something better to offer, only to find out 2 weeks ago that I am totally out of job because vCustomer did not deliver its promise. I went to DOLE and NLRC, I explained to them what happened to me and YES! both agencies told me that i have a VALID case.

Would my case be different from those who also experienced the same fate? I don't think so. We have mouths to feed and we need work. I encourage you to go to DOLE, know your rights and options. Look for Ma'am Mohana.

[IamSylarMendez]

ouch! sigh

[joanrie777]

I have been in the call center industry for more than 10 years. I READ and SIGNED my vCustomer Job Offer. I clearly understand EVERYTHING stipulated in it. I resigned from my previous job believing that this company has something better to offer, only to find out 2 weeks ago that I am totally out of job because vCustomer did not deliver its promise. I went to DOLE and NLRC, I explained to them what happened to me and YES! both agencies told me that i have a VALID case.

Would my case be different from those who also experienced the same fate? I don't think so. We have mouths to feed and we need work. I encourage you to go to DOLE, know your rights and options. Look for Ma'am Mohana.

WTH! Wala pa gani ga start ang operation sa kompanya naa naman dayon record sa DOLE & NLRC. Go go go! Fight! Dapat motingog gyud ug dili palupig especially now that Indians are manning the company nah!