Case Digest (G.R. No. 165199)
Facts:
This is Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Inocencio B. Berbano, Jr., G.R. No. 165199, November 27, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). Respondent: Inocencio B. Berbano, Jr.Berbano was hired by PLDT on June 1, 1988 as an Engineering Assistant, became a regular employee after a three-month probationary period, and was later promoted to Computer Assistant M-2 on June 16, 1993 in the Sampaloc Exchange Department/Operation and Maintenance Center. Although his title was Computer Assistant M-2, he performed technical Specialist functions involving the EWSD switching network, including database modification and subscriber service feature programming. To study EWSD service features, Berbano admitted he temporarily used his brother‑in‑law’s telephone number (911‑8234) to install various service features for testing.
Quality Control began investigating the 911‑8234 line; on April 21–22, 1994 Berbano was implicated and he admitted installing the features for testing. On July 6, 1994 PLDT’s department head required an explanation within 72 hours; Berbano submitted a written explanation on July 11, 1994 asserting the installations were for study and testing. PLDT found the explanation unacceptable and, by inter‑office memorandum dated August 9, 1994, dismissed Berbano effective August 16, 1994 for unauthorized installation of service features (characterized as gross misconduct).
The Labor Arbiter (Romulus S. Protasio) rendered a decision on September 28, 1998 ordering reinstatement with backwages (P537,420.00) and 10% attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter on May 29, 2002, declaring respondents not guilty of illegal dismissal and deleting the awards; Berbano’s motion for reconsideration filed August 15, 2002 was denied by NLRC Resolution dated October 29, 2002. Berbano then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which on January 21, 2004 granted the petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision; the CA denied PLDT’s reconsideration on September 9, 2004....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari filed by respondent despite an allegedly untimely motion for reconsideration before the NLRC?
- Was respondent denied procedural due process in his dismissal by petitioner?
- Was respondent’s unauthorized programming and installation of service features a serious misconduct justifying dismissal under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code?
- Were the Court of Appeals’ awards of reinstatem...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)