Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Domingo
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) v. Cecilio Z. Domingo, G.R. No. 197402, June 30, 2021
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Labor Law
- illegal dismissal
- serious misconduct
- forged requisition forms
- substantial evidence
- Rule 65 certiorari
- NLRC factual findings
- due process in labor cases
- right to cross-examine
- labor arbiters
- amplе opportunity to be heard
I. Facts of the Case
Respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo, an Installer/Repairman turned Storekeeper of PLDT, was dismissed for serious misconduct after PLDT discovered material inventory discrepancies tied to requisition forms and allegations of forged signatures in the “authorized by” and “received by” portions. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC upheld the dismissal as supported by substantial evidence, but the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered reinstatement with full backwages, prompting PLDT’s petition to the Supreme Court.
Domingo was employed by PLDT as an Installer/Repairman (starting October 14, 1980), and later assigned in May 2001 as a temporary Storekeeper in PLDT’s DSIM Tambo Warehouse; in June 2001, he was appointed permanent Storekeeper.
As Storekeeper, Domingo controlled inventory and requisitioning using specific forms (PLD 140 for base stock modems and PLD 158 for other materials), which required approvals and were used to withdraw supplies from PLDT warehouses.
In 2002, DSIM Tambo Warehouse transactions for PLD 140 and PLD 158 forms drastically increased compared with 2001, and the value of materials requisitioned using PLD 158 in 2002 became significantly higher than in 2001.
Because of the drastic increase, PLDT conducted a materials inventory in December 2002 and, upon audit, discovered a huge discrepancy between total materials requisitioned and those actually used in projects and remaining inventory.
PLDT investigated and retrieved most of the 2002 PLD forms, then found forged signatures in the “authorized by” and “received by” portions; the purported “authorized by” signatories denied authorizing and signing the forms.
PLDT also questioned employees whose signatures appeared in the “received by” portion, who denied their signatures; PLDT further obtained sworn statements identifying Domingo as the person who presented forged forms and received listed materials, supported by security registry entries showing Domingo’s visits on relevant dates.
May 14, 2004
PLDT issued a Memorandum (First Invitation) scheduling a formal inquiry on May 19, 2004, but Domingo refused to receive and did not attend.
May 25, 2004
PLDT issued a Memorandum (Second Invitation) scheduling a formal inquiry on May 28, 2004; Domingo neither acknowledged receipt nor attended.
June 7, 2004
PLDT issued a Memorandum (Third Invitation) scheduling a final formal inquiry on June 10, 2004; Domingo failed to appear, so PLDT proceeded without him and concluded its investigation, recommending administrative action through an Investigation Report dated January 19, 2005.
February 21, 2005
PLDT issued a Request for Explanation requiring Domingo to explain why he should not be dismissed, citing voluminous outside plant materials allegedly unaccounted for, material losses, withdrawals/receipts occurring while he was on vacation or assigned regionally, and forged requisition signatories.
February 24, 2005
With counsel, Domingo submitted a three-page denial letter contesting the delay, asserting he was not informed of the investigation, and alleging he was not furnished copies of documentary evidence.
May 18, 2005
After reviewing Domingo’s response, PLDT issued a Notice of Termination dismissing him for serious misconduct effective at the close of business hours of May 18, 2005, citing material losses and forged requisition signatories.
Domingo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter seeking reinstatement and full backwages.
July 25, 2006
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that PLDT established serious misconduct by substantial evidence and that the dismissal was a just and valid ground.
June 27, 2007
The NLRC denied Domingo’s appeal and sustained the Labor Arbiter, affirming that PLDT proved serious misconduct through substantial evidence.
Domingo filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 107672), challenging the NLRC’s findings.
January 31, 2011
The Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the NLRC resolutions, declared Domingo illegally dismissed, ordered reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees, and found PLDT failed to meet the substantial evidence requirement and that Domingo had no malicious intent.
June 22, 2011
The Court of Appeals denied PLDT’s motion for reconsideration.
August 12, 2011
PLDT filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that Domingo was not denied due process and that the CA erred in reversing the NLRC’s factual findings absent grave abuse of discretion.
June 30, 2021
The Supreme Court granted PLDT’s petition, reversed the CA decision and resolution, set aside the illegal dismissal ruling, and reinstated the NLRC resolution sustaining the dismissal.
II. Issues
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed serious error in giving due course to Domingo's petition for certiorari, notwithstanding the fact that he was not able to establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that would justify the nullification of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing and modifying the NLRC factual findings despite the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed serious error in giving due course to Domingo's petition for certiorari, notwithstanding the fact that he was not able to establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that would justify the nullification of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in treating the NLRC’s factual findings as reviewable on certiorari under Rule 65 despite the absence of grave abuse of discretion, and it also erred in finding a denial of due process.
How the Court reasoned
- Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC must be accorded great respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence.
- In Rule 65 certiorari, the CA’s inquiry into NLRC findings of fact is limited to whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not whether the CA would have reached a different factual conclusion.
- The Supreme Court found that Domingo was not denied due process of law because he was furnished written notices and given opportunities to be heard, even if no formal hearing was held.
- A formal trial-type hearing is not an indispensable or exclusive avenue of due process in labor cases; an ample opportunity to be heard under Article 277(b) is what is required.
- Domingo cannot complain of due process where he refused invitations and did not attend scheduled inquiries, and where PLDT provided a Request for Explanation and a Notice of Termination.
“Otherwise stated, the CA's inquiry in petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 must be limited to whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in arriving at its factual findings.”
Rule applied
Rule 65, Rules of Court; Article 277(b) of the Labor Code; doctrine that NLRC factual findings supported by substantial evidence are generally final and binding on the CA in certiorari.
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing and modifying the NLRC factual findings despite the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC’s factual findings that PLDT proved serious misconduct by substantial evidence, and it set aside the CA’s reversal ordering reinstatement with full backwages.
How the Court reasoned
- In illegal dismissal cases, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, which is satisfied when relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate is presented.
- The Supreme Court accepted PLDT’s evidence as substantial: forged signatures in the requisition forms’ approval and receipt portions, plus sworn statements and corroboration via security registry entries identifying Domingo as presenting the forged forms and receiving materials.
- Domingo failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies and the forged requisition signatures after being given the opportunity to respond to the charge.
- The CA erred in overturning the NLRC’s factual findings despite the absence of grave abuse of discretion, and its conclusion that PLDT failed to meet substantial evidence was contrary to the record findings affirmed by the NLRC.
Rule applied
Article 277(b) of the Labor Code; Rule 65, Rules of Court; doctrine that NLRC findings of fact supported by substantial evidence bind the CA absent grave abuse of discretion.
Doctrines
Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC must be accorded great respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence; under Rule 65, the CA’s review is limited to whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in arriving at its factual findings.
In illegal dismissal cases, the required quantum of proof is substantial evidence. A dismissal may be upheld when the employer proves the elements of serious misconduct with substantial evidence, and the employee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation.
Article 277(b) requires an ample opportunity to be heard; this does not necessarily mean a formal trial-type hearing. Due process in labor proceedings is satisfied when the employee is given written notices and meaningful opportunity to explain, especially where the employee fails to attend scheduled inquiries.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The January 31, 2011 Decision and June 22, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107672 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The NLRC Resolution dated June 27, 2007 is REINSTATED.
Notes
This digest synthesizes the procedural and substantive holdings emphasizing (1) the limited Rule 65 scope over NLRC factual findings and (2) compliance with due process in labor dismissals without a formal pretermination hearing where the employee was given opportunities to be heard.