G.R. No. 197402 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Domingo

Respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo was employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as an Installer/Repairman since October 14, 1980.
In May 2001, Domingo was temporarily reassigned as a Storekeeper in PLDT’s Data Services Installation Maintenance (DSIM) Division at the Tambo Warehouse in Pasay City and was later permanently appointed in June 2001.

As Storekeeper, Domingo was responsible for maintaining inventory and executing material requisitions using the PLD forms:

PLD 140 was used for base stock modems.
PLD 158 was used by DSIM Combination Men for materials such as wires, connectors, clamps, and electrical tapes.

In 2001, the warehouse transacted only three PLD 140 forms and 277 PLD 158 forms, which drastically increased in 2002 to 102 and 1,336 transactions respectively.
The materials requisitioned under PLD 158 in 2002 amounted to P17,081,843.31 compared to a significantly lower expense in 2001, raising questions about the unusual increase.

A materials inventory in December 2002 revealed a large discrepancy between requisitioned materials and those recorded as used or remaining in the inventory.
During the subsequent investigation, PLDT recovered a significant number of the original warehouse copies of the forged PLD 140 and PLD 158 forms.
Examination of these documents showed that the signatures in the “authorized by” and “received by” portions were forged and did not match the specimen signatures on file.
DSIM Team Leaders and other employees, whose signatures appeared on the forms, submitted sworn affidavits denying their authorization or receipt of such forms.
Testimonies, including that of Nimrod Paradero of the DSIM Reposo Satellite Warehouse and corroboration by vehicle security registries, directly implicated Domingo in presenting the forged documents and physically retrieving materials.
Several clerks testified that Domingo instructed them to prepare the fraudulent PLD forms.

PLDT issued three separate invitations (May 14, May 25, and June 7, 2004) for Domingo to attend a formal inquiry regarding the anomalies.
Domingo repeatedly refused to acknowledge or appear for the inquiries.
PLDT, unable to secure his cooperation, eventually concluded its investigation and issued an Investigation Report on January 19, 2005, which recommended administrative action for serious misconduct.

Following the investigation, PLDT issued a Request for Explanation on February 21, 2005, requiring Domingo to explain why he should not be dismissed for causing material losses amounting to over P17 million.
Domingo submitted a brief three-page letter denying the allegations but did not dispute the irregularities.
Subsequently, PLDT issued a Notice of Termination on May 18, 2005, dismissing Domingo for serious misconduct.

Domingo filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA), seeking reinstatement and backwages; however, the LA dismissed his complaint.
He then appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the dismissal in its Resolution dated June 27, 2007.
Dissatisfied, Domingo filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, arguing that due process was not observed and that the offense had been condoned under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
On January 31, 2011, the CA reversed the NLRC’s Resolution, declaring Domingo’s dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees.

PLDT then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s decision.
PLDT contended that the CA erred in reversing the NLRC’s finding, asserting that:

There was no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC;
The substantial evidence supported Domingo’s serious misconduct;
Due process was duly observed by furnishing written notices and an opportunity to be heard.

The Supreme Court ultimately granted PLDT’s petition, reversed the CA’s decision, and reinstated the NLRC’s Resolution upholding Domingo’s dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the NLRC’s factual findings in the absence of demonstrating grave abuse of discretion.
Whether a mere disagreement on the evaluation of evidence is sufficient to reverse administrative findings.

Whether the evidence presented by PLDT, though not proving moral certainty, was enough to constitute "substantial evidence" for serious misconduct.
Whether the required standard in illegal dismissal cases was met.

Not being provided copies of the investigative findings;
Not being given a formal hearing despite the alleged irregularities in the invitation process.

Whether the three invitations to appear in the formal inquiry constituted valid “show-cause” notices under both the Labor Code and the CBA.

Whether the absence of cross-examination of PLDT’s witnesses and the reliance on affidavit evidence denied Domingo his right to a fair opportunity to be heard.
Whether the relaxed application of evidentiary rules in labor cases affects due process requirements.