SC orders BPO firm to pay damages for pregnancy discrimination

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, ordered business process outsourcing firm Sutherland Global Services Philippines, Inc.-Clark to pay backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees to a former employee who was discriminated against due to her pregnancy.

The ruling, dated 6 August 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Henri Jena Paul Inting, stemmed from the complaint filed by Isabelle Francesca Paulino. She said that a week after disclosing her pregnancy, she was transferred from Sutherland’s Shaw office to its Tarlac site.

The transfer forced Paulino to travel about three and a half hours daily to work. She later fell ill and was reassigned to the Clark site, initially on a temporary basis, but the posting was eventually made permanent.

Paulino said she was compelled to accept the transfer to avoid being placed on floating status without pay.

However, when she applied for medical leave, the company placed her on an “Absconding List,” resulting in the withholding of her salary.

After giving birth, Paulino requested to return to the Shaw office so she could care for her child, but the request was denied.

When she asked whether she should resign instead, her training manager allegedly said it would be approved, prompting her to submit a resignation letter.

She later filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, nonpayment of 13th month pay, and moral and exemplary damages.

Sutherland claimed that Paulino voluntarily resigned and that her complaint was baseless, adding that the company itself should be entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

The National Labor Relations Commission ordered Sutherland to pay Paulino backwages and separation pay, ruling that her transfers were motivated by discrimination due to her pregnancy. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, saying there was no evidence the firm intentionally made her working conditions unbearable and noting that she had expressed an intention to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Third Division disagreed and ruled in favor of Paulino, stating that her resignation letter clearly showed she was left with no option but to leave because of pregnancy discrimination.

The court noted that the resignation letter also mentioned the possibility of resorting to legal remedies.

It said that based on the full text of the resignation letter alone, it was clear that Paulino’s resignation was not voluntary.

The arguments raised by Sutherland were described by the court as “absurd,” including its claim that there was no constructive dismissal because Paulino accepted the transfers to the Tarlac and Clark offices as part of management prerogative, that she was neither demoted nor given a pay cut, and that she was provided hotel accommodations.

The high court further noted that Paulino’s transfer occurred just a week after she disclosed her pregnancy and said the company’s justification that the transfer was due to the closure of the Shaw office was not supported by sufficient evidence.