PLDT is more than just being insensitive

I received an email from one Marilyn R. Singzon, who wrote "home care" after her name. Whether the words referred to a unit, division or department of a corporate organization where she belonged or "home care" described her position in the company was something that was blurry. Nothing in her letter was helpful enough to educate me. However, the email address that appeared on the e-letter was [email protected]. So, I had to assume that this lady exists as a human being and that she should be an organic part of the giant Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. I also had to surmise that she wrote it in reaction to my article entitled "PLDT, AN INSENSITIVE COMPANY", that appeared, in this column, few days ago.

As it is the nature of emails, that one from Ms. Singzon did not carry a signature. I would have no way of knowing whether she actually authored it or some underling did it for her. For all we know, the company's PR received a memo to make the said letter. If it was her function to prepare such kind of communication, and she did it personally, then it was either that she did not comprehend the nature of my article for which reason her salvo was entirely misdirected or she felt perched too high in a corporate structure that her condescending impertinence made her treat other human beings especially the modest ones like me, with a pretense at intellectual brashness.

It was also possible that Ms. Singzon, acting with Delphic arrogance, simply ordered a subordinate to scribble something in reply to my article, if only to report to her corporate superiors that a column, written by a complete nobody, like me, had, somehow, been addressed. Perhaps, without having read the "reply" herself, (for why should she spare time for a virtually insignificant item?) she thought that the matter was already taken care of, meaning disposed like a s___t.

Here is news to Ms. Singzon or PLDT. The emailed reply did not understand my topic and consequently, it did not meet what I was talking about in my column. It was a waste of time and resources, of which PLDT has in absolute abundance, for Ms Singzon or her shadow to dwell on an entirely different matter.

It seemed that from the language of the e-letter, the purported writer, Ms. Singzon or her sub-altern tried to "explain about the voice recording" of the company. She thought I did not know that it was a voice recording and that was why she proceeded by saying that it was also heard by other customers. Towards the end of her message, she expressed a hope that her explanation clarified my concern.

Good heavens! You might have misread my article completely. You did not have to tell me that it was a recording. There is no dispute about it. I knew it was your recording that your company tapped into my line without my permission. Pastilan oi, my article was not about the fact that it was a recording. Everybody and not just PLDT or Ms Singzon can do a recording. If they can spare few minutes to re-read my write up PLDT and/or Ms Singzon would find out that it was about the rudeness and the indecency with which the recording was couched.

Until I took my sabbatical from active trial work more than a decade ago, I wrote thousands of demand letters of diverse objectives. They were more or less equivalent to the "voice recording" PLDT made. Even if I sent legal demands, I made it a point to be courteous. The threat that the telephone giant's "voice recording" flaunted was never a part of my strategy. Of course, courtesy is a matter of breeding while threat and its kin, arrogance, are the unmistakable signs of abusive power.

I said PLDT/Ms. Singzon "might have misread my article" because I really like to think that they fully understood what I wrote. It was, after all, a very simple expression of my total disappointment of PLDT's recklessness. They knew what I meant but they would not want to admit that their collection strategy was distasteful more than just being flawed.  And since they wanted to veer away from discussing my personal perception of the company's insensitiveness Ms. Singzon (was she?) composed that "explanation." To me, it only succeeded to add unpardonable insult to my otherwise remediable injury. 

[email protected]