Perez vs Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company

1. Petitioners are employed by respondent as:

a. Felix Perez – shipping clerk
b. Amante Doria – supervisor
2. Acting on an alleged complaint regarding anomalous transactions at the Shipping
Section, the respondent conducted special audits and discovered that petitioners jacked
up the value of freight costs and the duplicates of shipping documents showing traces of
tampering, alteration and superimposition.
3. Petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30 days. It was extended twice.
4. Subsequently, petitioners were dismissed from the service.
5. Labor Arbiter – the 30-day extension of their suspension and subsequent dismissal were
both illegal; ordered to pay their salaries and reinstate them with back wages and 13th
month pay.
6. NLRC – reversed the decision of the LA and ruled that petitioners were dismissed for
just cause, that they were accorded due process and that they were illegally suspended
for only 15 days.
7. CA – affirmed the decision of the NLRC insofar as illegal suspension for 15 days and
dismissal for just cause were concerned. But it found that petitioners were dismissed
without due process.
a. There was sufficient basis for respondents to lose confidence in petitioners for
allegedly tampering with the shipping documents. Respondents emphasized the
importance of a shipping order or request, as it was the basis of their liability to a
cargo forwarder.
8. Supreme Court:
a. Ruled in favour of petitioners.
b. The evidence is insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish the facts from
which the loss of confidence resulted.
c. Respondents should have provided evidence of petitioners functions, the extent
of their duties, the procedure in the handling and approval of shipping requests
and the fact that no personnel other than petitioners were involved.
d. It was never proven that petitioners alone had control of or access to these
documents.
e. Impartial tribunals should merely rely on the statement of the employer that it has
lost confidence in its employee.
f. Willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative is a just cause for termination.
i. However, lost of confidence should not be simulated. Should not be used
as a subterfuge for cause which are improper, illegal or unjustified.
g. The burden of proof lies on the employer in view of the security of tenure that
employees enjoy under the Constitution and the Labor Code.
h. Must be proven by substantial evidence.
i. Dues process for the dismissal of an employee:
i. A written notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving to
said employee a reasonable opportunity to explain his side
ii. Another written notice indicating that, upon due consideration of all
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the
employer’s decision to dismiss the employee.
j. Petitioners were never apprised of the charges against them nor give a
chance to defend themselves.
k. Dues process was also not observed in the absence of a hearing in which they
could have explained their side and refuted the evidence against them.
l. There is a marked difference in the standards of due process to be followed as
prescribed the Labor Code and its implementing rules:
i. Labor Code – an employer must provide the employee ample opportunity
to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative.
ii. IRR – requires a hearing and conference during which the employee
concerned is given the opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.
m. LC must prevail.
n. Ample opportunity to be heard – ample means considerably more than adequate
or sufficient. As such this could be interpreted as extensive enough to cover
actual hearing or conference. Hence IRR is in conformity with the LC.
o. IRR does not mean that holding an actual hearing or conference is a condition
sine qua non for compliance of the due process requirement in termination of an
employment.
p. The test for fair procedure guaranteed under Article 277(b) cannot be whether
there has been a formal pretermination confrontation between the employer
and the employee.
q. Ample opportunity to be heard is neither synonymous nor similar to a formal
hearing. Such an exclusivist and absolutist interpretation is overly restrictive. The
very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures
universally applicable to every imaginable situation.
r. The standard for hearing requirement, is couched in general terms to give effect
to the legislative intent to give some degree of flexibility or adaptability to meet
the peculiarities of a situation. An actual, formal trial-type hearing, although is
preferred, is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the hearing requirement.
s. Section 2(d) of the IRR must be observed substantially, not strictly. While a
formal conference is ideal, it is not an absolute, mandatory, or exclusive avenue
of due process.
t. It is satisfied not only by a formal face to face confrontation but by any
meaningful opportunity to controvert the charges against him and to submit
evidence is support thereof.
u. Guiding principles:
i. Ample opportunity to be heard means any meaningful opportunity
(verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges
against him and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether
in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way.
ii. A formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when
requested by the employee in writing or substantial evidentiary
disputes exist or a company rule or practice requires it, ow hen
similar circumstances justify it.
iii. Ample opportunity to be heard standard in the Labor Code prevails
over the hearing or conference requirement in the implementing
rules and regulation.
v. Petitioners were illegally suspended for 30 days:
i. Where the dismissal was without just or authorized cause and there was
no due process, Article 279 of LC mandates that the employee is entitled
to reinstatement without loss of rights and other privileges and full
backwages.
w. Petition is granted. But reinstatement is no longer practical since 14 years have
already passed. Payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.