Title
Perez vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co.
Case
G.R. No. 152048
Decision Date
Apr 7, 2009
Employees dismissed for alleged document tampering; SC ruled no just cause, due process violated, illegal suspension; awarded separation pay.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 102692)

Facts:

  • Employment and Anomaly Discovery
    • Petitioners Felix B. Perez and Amante G. Doria were employed by Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (PT&T) as shipping clerk and supervisor in the Shipping Section, Materials Management Group.
    • A special audit, prompted by an unsigned letter, revealed inflated freight costs and tampering, alteration, and superimposition on duplicate shipping documents.
  • Disciplinary Proceedings and Procedural History
    • Preventive suspension:
      • Initial 30-day suspension from September 3, 1993.
      • Two extensions of 15 days each on October 3 and October 18, 1993.
    • Dismissal: On October 29, 1993, PT&T issued a memorandum dismissing petitioners for falsifying company documents; they received it November 8, 1993, and filed a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal on November 9, 1993.
    • Labor Arbiter’s Decision (December 27, 1995): Found both the 30-day extension and the dismissal illegal; ordered payment of salaries during suspension, reinstatement with backwages and 13th-month pay.
    • NLRC Decision: Reversed the Arbiter; held dismissal for just cause with due process and illegal suspension for only 15 days.
    • Court of Appeals Decision (January 29, 2002): Affirmed NLRC on just cause and 15-day suspension but ruled that due process was not observed in the dismissal.
    • Petition for review: Petitioners challenged the CA decision before the Supreme Court, alleging lack of just cause, absence of due process, and an illegal 30-day suspension.

Issues:

  • Just Cause for Dismissal
    • Whether PT&T established, by clear and convincing evidence, a just cause based on loss of trust and document falsification.
  • Compliance with Due Process
    • Whether PT&T observed the two-notice requirement and afforded petitioners a meaningful opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.
  • Legality of Preventive Suspension
    • Whether the 30-day preventive suspension and its two 15-day extensions were lawful and whether petitioners were properly compensated.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.