G.R. No. 211185 - Paez vs. Marinduque Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Petitioner Jimmy Paez was hired by Marinduque Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MARELCO) on March 16, 1984, and at the time of termination, he held the position of Sub-Office Chief.
His long service record was notable, having served for 21 years without any prior charge of misconduct or infraction.

In 2004, MARELCO identified irregularities in its operations concerning the Smart and Globe projects, specifically involving illegal tapping of Globe cell sites and the unauthorized installation of a KWH meter at Brgy. San Antonio, Sta. Cruz.
An Ad-hoc Committee was constituted to investigate the irregularities, and petitioner, among others, was invited to provide information regarding who authorized the energization of the cell sites and installation of the meter.
During questioning, petitioner stated that someone from the Technical Services Department approved the energization through a telephone conversation; however, he could not recall or identify the person’s name.

Petitioner received three subsequent letters of invitation (dated January 24, 2005; February 10, 2005; and February 15, 2005) to attend further investigations into the irregularities.
Owing to certain reasons, petitioner failed to attend the additional sessions, leading the investigating committee to consider his absence as a waiver of his right to be heard and to present evidence.

After the inquiry, petitioner was placed under “floating status” pending the completion of the investigation, with suspicions that he was “concealing information” regarding the irregularities, implying collusion or conspiracy.
On March 21, 2005, based on the inability of petitioner to reveal the identity of his source, MARELCO terminated his employment, alleging a violation of Section 7.2.9 of the Code of Employees Conduct—specifically, knowingly giving untruthful statements or concealing material facts.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-04-00104-05-MA.
The Labor Arbiter ruled on June 30, 2008, dismissing the employer’s case by holding that petitioner’s failure to identify his informer constituted serious misconduct, fraud, or willful breach of trust, justifying his termination.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal on May 29, 2009, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering MARELCO to pay backwages and retirement pay, despite petitioner’s subsequent arguments.
MARELCO sought reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA Decision dated February 25, 2013, affirmed with modifications the NLRC ruling: it specifically upheld the termination of petitioner while granting monetary awards to the other complainants.
Petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the CA ruling which was also denied, prompting the present petition for review under Rule 45.

Whether petitioner’s dismissal on the ground of his failure to disclose the identity of the person who approved the energization of Globe cell sites constitutes willful disobedience, fraud, or willful breach of trust and confidence sufficient to justify his termination.
Whether the calamity of dismissing petitioner, given his 21-year service and absence of previous infractions, is disproportionate and thus renders his termination illegal despite his infraction.
Whether the CA erred in basing petitioner’s dismissal on a ground different from that established by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, specifically imputing that his action of energizing the cell sites without proper procedural authorization was the basis for termination.
Whether, even under the assumption that petitioner committed an infraction, a less severe penalty than dismissal (considering his long service) should have been imposed.