CASE DIGEST : Case Digest: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) v. Cecilio Z. Domingo G.R. No. 197402, June 30, 2021 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

Cecilio Z. Domingo was employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as an Installer/Repairman in 1980. In 2001, he was assigned as a Storekeeper at PLDT’s Data Services Installation Maintenance Division (DSIM) Tambo Warehouse. As Storekeeper, he was responsible for the safekeeping, recording, and release of company materials, as well as the processing of material requisitions necessary for PLDT operations.

In 2002, PLDT discovered irregularities involving the release of company materials from the DSIM Tambo Warehouse. An audit revealed that several requisition documents, including PLD 140 and PLD 158 forms, contained questionable signatures of authorized personnel. The employees whose names appeared on the forms denied signing them and claimed that their signatures were forged. The investigation further revealed that materials worth approximately millions of pesos were released but could not be properly accounted for.

PLDT conducted an investigation and found that Domingo was involved in processing and obtaining the questioned materials. Evidence showed that Domingo presented requisition forms, withdrew materials from warehouses, and facilitated transactions using documents that were later found to be fraudulent. PLDT sent Domingo notices and invitations to explain his side, but he failed to fully participate in the investigation.

After evaluating the evidence and Domingo’s explanation, PLDT dismissed him for serious misconduct. Domingo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that PLDT failed to prove his participation in the irregularities and denied him due process. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the dismissal, but the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that Domingo was illegally dismissed. PLDT then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the NLRC and declaring that Domingo was illegally dismissed despite PLDT’s evidence showing his involvement in the irregularities involving company materials.

Whether or not PLDT had sufficient basis to terminate Domingo’s employment for serious misconduct under the Labor Code, considering the evidence presented against him.

Whether or not Domingo was denied procedural due process because he was allegedly not given a formal hearing, not allowed to confront witnesses, and not provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself before his termination.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted PLDT’s petition and ruled that Domingo was validly dismissed. The Court held that the Court of Appeals improperly reversed the findings of the NLRC because the NLRC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari may only prosper when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court explained that disagreement with the evaluation of evidence is not enough to overturn the findings of administrative agencies, especially when supported by substantial evidence.

The Court ruled that PLDT sufficiently established the existence of serious misconduct, which is a valid ground for termination under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Serious misconduct refers to improper conduct that is grave, related to the employee’s duties, and shows that the employee is no longer worthy of the employer’s trust and confidence. Domingo’s participation in transactions involving falsified requisition forms and unaccounted company materials was directly connected to his duties as Storekeeper, whose responsibility was to protect and properly manage company property.

The Court also ruled that PLDT complied with the requirements of procedural due process under Article 292(b) (formerly Article 277[b]) of the Labor Code. The law requires that an employee be given notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to explain his side before dismissal. The Court emphasized that a formal trial-type hearing is not required in administrative termination proceedings. Since Domingo was informed of the allegations, was invited to participate in the investigation, and was allowed to submit his explanation, his right to due process was satisfied.

Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Domingo’s argument that PLDT condoned his misconduct due to the delay in issuing the notice to explain. The Court held that the delay was justified because PLDT had to conduct an extensive investigation involving numerous documents and employees, and Domingo’s failure to cooperate contributed to the delay. Therefore, Domingo could not use the delay as a defense. The Court reinstated the NLRC ruling and upheld the validity of his dismissal.