Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE |
|
G.R. No. 189366 |
|
TELEPHONE COMPANY, |
|
|
|
Petitioner, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
ABAD,⃰ and |
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
EUSEBIO M. HONRADO, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
December 8, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
The law in protecting
the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction
of the employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social
justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that
every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management
also has its own rights, which, as such, are entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. x x x[1]
For resolution is the
Petition for Review on certiorari of
petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) which seeks to
reverse the Court of Appeals’ (CAs’) Decision[2] dated September 25, 2008
and Resolution dated September 2, 2009 in CA G.R. SP No. 89372 entitled “Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
v. National Labor Relations Commission and Eusebio M. Honrado.”
Factual Antecedents
The antecedent facts based
on the September 25, 2008 Decision of the CA are as follows:
Private
respondent Eusebio Honrado (hereafter “Honrado”) was an employee of petitioner
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT for brevity) assigned at the
PLDT North Parañaque Exchange. He was hired on August 25, 1981 and held the
position of a senior lineman with a monthly salary of P21,600.00 prior
to the termination of his employment on February 15, 2001.
On November 29, 1999, spouses Pete A. Mueda and
Rodrigo H. Mueda went to PLDT’s Quality Control Division (QCD for brevity) to
verify their application for telephone because according to them, a person
named Rony Hipolito (hereafter “Hipolito”) who introduced himself as a PLDT
employee went to their house on November 26, 1999 in the afternoon. Spouses
Mueda narrated that Hipolito told them that he is the area inspector assigned
therein and that “okay na ang linya ng
PLDT dito sa area ng Kalayaan, pwede ng magbayad ng kalahati, pero hindi pa
pwedeng magpakabit ngayon dahil Sabado at ipapriority and teleponong ikakabit
sa amin dahil nagda-down kami”. They likewise narrated that he mentioned
that “ipapakilala niya kaming relatives
niya para mauna na kami makabitan” and that they can pay directly to him
since he is a PLDT employee and that x x x the balance can be paid to PLDT
within six months on installment basis. Spouses Mueda further stated: that
because of this, they paid Hipolito P1,500.00 as partial payment for the
installation of their new telephone line; that Hipolito even signed a receipt
stating that he received P1,500.00 downpayment on the same date,
November 26, 1999; and that he also gave a contact number of 822-2828 in case
they have any query or follow-up.
At
the QCD, Spouses Mueda found out that the act of Hipolito in soliciting and
receiving P1,500.00 as down payment for installation of a new telephone
line is against the policy of herein petitioner. So, in order to ascertain the
identity of Rony Hipolito, Mrs. Pete Mueda was shown several pictures of
outside plant personnel of herein petitioner with surname Hipolito. However,
Mrs. Mueda could not pinpoint anyone who introduced himself as Rony Hipolito.
Hence,
on January 18, 2000, Mr. Domosthenes J. Yap, QCD Investigator together with
Mrs. Mueda, conducted a stake out operation at the PLDT North Parañaque
Exchange to [determine] the identity of Rony Hipolito. When herein private
respondent Honrado handed his
On
January 19, 2000, a confrontation [proceeding] between private respondent and
Mrs. Mueda was conducted at the QCD. In the said [proceeding], Mrs. Mueda
categorically declared, in the presence of private respondent, that the latter
solicited and received P1,500.00 from her as down payment for the
installation of her new telephone line. On the other hand, private respondent
opted not [to] give any statement on the accusation against him. Nevertheless,
he was given until January 26, 2000 to give a statement or explain his side
which, was further extended until January 31, 2000 per letter dated January 26,
2000 of Mr. Fidel Paulino, acting head-QCD.
On
May 9, 2000, per inter-office memorandum, the head of the QCD transmitted to
the manager of private respondent, Mr. Torrenueva, the Investigation Report
recommending that an administrative action for gross misconduct be filed
against private respondent.
Then,
on June 8, 2002, through an inter-office memorandum, Mr. Torrenueva asked
private respondent to explain, in writing[,] within 72 hours from receipt of
the memo, why he should not be dismissed for serious misconduct and if he so
desire, he may ask for a hearing. Failure to do so shall be taken as waiver of
his right to be heard. In reply, private respondent, per inter-office
memorandum dated June 15, 2000, vehemently denied all the allegations imputed
against him and requested for a formal hearing with the assistance of his
counsel and Union official. On the same date, Mr. Torrenueva, per inter-office
memorandum, informed private respondent that the formal hearing of his case was
set on June 22, 2000.
Per
letter dated June 20, 2000 of Atty. Untalan, Jr., he requested for the
resetting of the hearing from June 22 to June 29 as he was just retained by
private respondent as counsel.
On
June 29, 2000, the formal hearing took place. In the said hearing, private
respondent again denied the accusation against him. Then, his counsel asked the
presiding officer to show them the alleged receipt issued by private
respondent. But the said PLDT officer, Mr. Yap, refused to show it to them and
told them that the hearing is only for the airing of private respondent’s
explanation and defenses. His counsel also persistently requested Mr. Yap to
give them at least a single opportunity to cross-examine the accusers of his
client to determine the truth because what was at stake was the means of
livelihood of his client but his plea was heard by deaf ears.
Thereafter,
per inter-office memorandum dated February 13, 2001, private respondent was
notified that he was found liable as charged, hence, dismissed from service
effective February 15, 2001 at the close of business hours. [3]
Ruling of the
Labor Arbiter
Consequently, respondent
Honrado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, money claims and damages
against petitioner PLDT, denominated as NLRC NCR Case No. 30-04-01903-01. After submission of their respective position
papers and other pleadings, on October 19, 2001, the Labor Arbiter dismissed
the complaint,[4] the
dispositive portion of which is as follows:[5]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered dismissing the instant case for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
Respondent
appealed[6]
to the NLRC. On May 7, 2003 the NLRC
granted the appeal, the decretal portion of which reads:[7]
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is set
aside. The respondent is hereby directed to reinstate complainant to his former
or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and benefits to pay him
full backwages computed from the date his salary was withheld from him until
the time he is actually reinstated.
SO
ORDERED.
Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order[8] dated
February 8, 2005.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari
with the CA. On September 25, 2008, the
CA rendered a Decision denying the petition and affirming the NLRC Decision.[9]
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration dated April 16, 2009 was likewise
denied in a CA Resolution dated September 2, 2009.[10]
The Parties’
Arguments
On October 20, 2009, petitioner
filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision dated September 25, 2008 and the Resolution dated
September 2, 2009, both of the CA. Petitioner
grounded its appeal on the following issues: (1) the CA misapplied the quantum
of proof required in holding that there is no sufficient basis to support the
cause for the respondent’s termination; and (2) the CA committed serious error
in finding that respondent Honrado was denied due process of law.[11]
On May 7, 2010,
respondent submitted his Comment on the petition arguing that “[T]this whole
case hinges on the violation of due process by the petitioner when it refused to
even show the receipt allegedly signed by the respondent and used by it as the
principal basis for dismissing the respondent.”[12] Subsequently, in a Manifestation filed on September
16, 2010, petitioner declared its intention not to submit a reply to the
respondent’s Comment.[13]
Our Ruling
The petition has merit.
“The requisites for a valid
dismissal are: (a) the employee must be afforded
due process, i.e., he must be
given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as
provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code or for any of the authorized causes
under Articles 283 and 284 of the same Code.”[14]
On the issue of due process
It is hornbook in
employee dismissal cases that “[t]he essence of due process is an opportunity
to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain one’s side x x x.”[15] “A formal or trial type hearing is not at all
times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which
are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their side of the controversy.”[16] Neither is
it necessary that the witnesses be cross-examined by counsel for
the adverse party.[17]
In
the instant case, a confrontation proceeding between respondent Honrado and the
therein complainant Mrs. Pete A. Mueda (Mrs. Mueda) was conducted at
petitioner’s QCD office on January 19, 2000.[18]
At the said proceeding, Mrs. Mueda declared the circumstances
surrounding the complaint against the respondent and more significantly
identified the respondent in a line-up:
TANONG 1: Ginang Mueda, sa inyong reklamo ay may
sinasabi kayong isang empleyado ng PLDT na nagpakilala bilang Rony Hipolito na
ayon sa inyo ay naningil sa inyo ng Php1,500.00 bilang down payment para sa
pagpapakabit ng linya ng telepono. May
ipinakita ako sa inyong litrato ng aming mga repairman na Hipolito ang apelyido
ngunit ayon sa inyo ay wala ka ni isang nakikilala sa mga litratong ito. Nagbigay din kayo sa akin ng isang telephone
number 822-2828 na ayon sa inyo ay ang contact number ni G. Hipolito. Nang aking suriin ito ay nakatalaga sa North [Parañaque]
CS/FAS. Dahil dito, minabuti kong isama
kayo sa North [Parañaque] Exchange na kung saan nakatalaga ang nasabing telepono
at doon ay nakilala at itinuro ninyo ang isang taong nagngangalang Eusebio M.
Honrado na ayon sa inyo [ay] positibo at sigurado kayo na siya ang naningil sa
inyo ng Php1,500.00 Tama po ba ang lahat ng ito?
TANONG 2: Maari
ninyo po bang sabihin kung nandito siya sa paghaharap-harap na ito?
SAGOT: Oo.
TANONG 3: Maari
ninyo po bang ituro kung sino siya sa mga nakahanay?
SAGOT: Siya
po. (Itinuro ni Ginang Mueda ang isang
taong naka suot ng light blue na T-shirt na nagpakilala bilang si Eusebio M.
Honrado.)
TANONG 4: Maari
ninyo bang sabihin ang inyong pangalan (investigator refers to the person
pinpointed by Ms. Mueda in the line-up)?
SAGOT: Ako
ho si Eusebio M. Honrado.
x x x x
Mga Tanong kay Ginang Mueda
TANONG 9: Ginang
Mueda, kailan kayo unang nagkita ni Ginoong Honrado?
SAGOT: Noong
November 26, 1999.
TANONG 10: Ito
rin ba ang araw ng kung kailan kayo nagbigay kay Ginoong Honrado ng Php1,500.00
bilang downpayment para sa installation ng linya ng telepono na ayon sa inyo ay
kayo ay siningil niya?
SAGOT: Oo.
x x x x
Upon the identification
of the respondent as the person who solicited, collected and received the
downpayment for the purported installation of therein complainant’s telephone
service, respondent was apprised of the charges against him as well as his
rights:
Mga Tanong kay Ginoong Honrado
TANONG 5: Narinig
ninyo ang sagot at pahayag ni Ginang Mueda na ayon sa kanya ay ikaw raw ay
humingi, naningil at tumanggap ng halagang P1,500.00 bilang down payment
para sa pagpapakabit ng linya ng telepono.
Ngunit bago kita tanungin tungkol sa bagay na ito ay nais ko munang
ipaalam sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan ayon sa ating Bagong Saligang
Batas. Na kayo ay may karapatang
tumangging sumagot sa mga tanong [na] sa tingin ninyo ay maaring makasama o
makapagpababa sa iyong pagkatao, o kaya’y sumagot ng hindi nanunumpa. Karapatan mo ring magsawalang kibo kung iyong
nanaisin. May karapatan ka ring
sumangguni sa abogado na sarili mong pili o sa inyong Union Council
Representative upang makatulong sa iyo sa pagsisiyasat na ito. Dahil anuman ang sabihin mo sa pagsisiyasat
na ito ay maaring gamiting ibedensiya laban o panig sa iyo. Naiintindihan mo ba ang iyong mga karapatan?
SAGOT: Oo.[19]
Thereafter,
respondent was notified by way of an Inter-Office Memo[20]
dated June 8, 2000 of the formal charges against him and was required to explain
in writing “why [he] should not be dismissed for serious misconduct.”
On June 15,
2000, respondent filed an Inter-Office Memo[21]
denying all the allegations imputed against him and requested for a formal
hearing with the assistance of his lawyer and a Union official.
Acting on the request
of the respondent, petitioner scheduled and held a formal hearing, with the
respondent accompanied by his lawyer and the union representative.[22] During said hearing, respondent’s counsel manifested
that they should first be shown the receipt evidencing the alleged down payment
made by Mrs. Mueda before the respondent would be asked to answer.[23] The company hearing officer noted the request
and clarified that the purpose of the proceedings was to hear the respondent’s counter-statement
to the accusation presented against him. Respondent denied the accusation against him.[24] Thereafter, his counsel asked the hearing
officer to allow them to cross-examine Mrs. Mueda.[25] However, considering that there was already a
prior confrontation proceeding between Mrs. Mueda and the respondent, the
company hearing officer denied the said request.[26]
Subsequently,
respondent Honrado received, through Inter-Office Memo dated February 13, 2001,
a Notice of Termination informing him that after a careful evaluation of his
case, he was found liable as charged and dismissed from the service due to
gross misconduct.[27]
On the basis of
the above-related circumstances, this Court agrees with the finding of the CA
that “petitioner technically followed all the procedures laid down in Book VI,
Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code in the
sense that: (1) private respondent was served with written notice specifying
the ground for his termination; (2) a formal hearing was conducted with the
assistance of his counsel; (3) and he was served with written notice of
termination indicating the grounds to justify it.”[28]
The CA cited
this Court’s ruling in Asuncion v. National
Labor Relations Commission[29] citing Ruffy v. National Labor Relations Commission,[30]
that ample opportunity would be “every kind of assistance that management must
accord to the employee to enable him to prepare for his defense.” However, a careful reading of the factual
setting of both cases belies their inapplicability to the instant case. In
On the issue of just cause
During the January 19, 2000
confrontation proceeding, Mrs. Mueda categorically declared in the presence of
respondent Honrado that the latter solicited and received P1,500.00 from
her as downpayment for the installation of her telephone line on November 26,
1999. This fact is corroborated by the unnotarized affidavits of the spouses Mueda and
the receipt issued for the P1,500.00 downpayment.
On the other
hand, respondent merely denied the accusations posed by Mrs. Mueda. In addition, in respondent’s position paper
submitted to the Labor Arbiter on June 28, 2001, he submitted the affidavits of
Ernesto Ponce, Rodolfo Untalan and Valente Jose, all dated June 27, 2001,[34]
claiming that Honrado was at his residence at
However, we
cannot give credence to said affidavits.
In respondent’s August 13, 2001 Reply filed with the Labor Arbiter,
respondent indicated that he reported for work at 6:00 p.m. Thus, we agree with the factual finding of
the Labor Arbiter in his October 19, 2001 Decision that “[I]f complainant
reported for work at 6:00 p.m. of November 26, 1999, he definitely was not in
PLDT Village, Biñan, Laguna shortly after 6:00 p.m. or at around 6:30 p.m. of
November 26, 1999,”[36]
as the separate affidavits of Rodolfo S. Untalan and Valente Jose declared.[37] Time and again, this Court has held that “[p]ositive
identification of the [respondent] where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the
part of the eyewitness x x x, should prevail over the alibi and denial of [the
respondent and his witnesses] whose testimonies are [conflicting] and not substantiated.”[38]
“[T]he quantum of proof required in
determining the legality of an employee’s dismissal is only substantial
evidence.”[39] In a similar case involving PLDT and another
installer/repairman, this Court held that “[T]the standard of substantial
evidence is met where the employer, as in this case, has reasonable ground to
believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his
participation in such misconduct makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by his position.” [40]
In this case, petitioner has
sufficiently established that respondent Honrado solicited, collected and
received the P1,500.00 downpayment from the spouses Mueda. First, on January 18, 2000, the PLDT QCD
Investigator together with Mrs. Mueda conducted a stake-out operation to expose
the identity of the person who asked for the downpayment. Honrado was identified by Mrs. Mueda when he
handed his P1,500.00 downpayment for the
installation of her new telephone line. Third, corroborating evidence in the form of
the affidavits of the spouses Mueda were submitted by the petitioner, together
with the receipt issued for the downpayment.
Taken together, the petitioner has dispensed with the burden of
establishing the serious misconduct committed by respondent Honrado. Such misconduct makes him unworthy of the
trust and confidence demanded by his position.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals are set aside. The
Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated October 19, 2001 dismissing the complaint
for lack of merit is hereby REINSTATED
and AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C.
CORONA
Chief Justice
⃰ In lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero
J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 917 dated November 24, 2010.
[1] Mercury Drug Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 75662, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA 580, 586-587.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 54-66; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred in by
Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla Lontok and Ricardo R. Rosario.
[3]
[4] Penned by Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog.
[5] Rollo, p. 115.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Estacio v. Pampanga I Electric
Cooperative, Inc., G.R.
No. 183196, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 542, 563-564. (Emphasis supplied.)
[15] Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company v. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007,
530 SCRA 550, 564-565.
[16] NEECO II v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 499
Phil 777, 787 (2005).
[17] Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc.,
451 Phil 839, 845 (2003), citing Rase v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No.
110637, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 523.
[18] Rollo, pp. 126-127.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] 414 Phil 329, 341 (2001).
[30] G.R. No. 84193, February 15, 1990, 182 SCRA 359, 365.
[31] Supra at 340-341.
[32] Supra at 369.
[33]
[34] Rollo, p. 159.
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] De La
Salle University, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127980, December 19,
2007, 541 SCRA 22, 55, citing People v. Abes, 465 Phil 165 (2004). Emphasis supplied.
[39] Faeldonia v. Tong Yak Groceries, G.R. No. 182499, October 2, 2009,
602 SCRA 677, 685, citing Philippine Long
distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson, G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November
11, 2005, 474 SCRA 761.
[40] Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company v. Bolso, supra note 15 at 561.