G.R. No. 143511 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Teves

Respondent Joey B. Teves was employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) in 1981 as a Clerk II.
He rendered 11 years of service before his termination from employment on June 1, 1992.

Respondent’s wife gave birth on August 25, 1990; due to complications, she was discharged only on September 2, 1990.
Lacking household help, respondent attended to his wife’s needs and that of their four children.
He communicated his intent to take an extended leave through a third party and, upon reporting for work on September 4, 1990, submitted a letter with a medical certificate explaining his absence.
Despite the submission, petitioner found this explanation unacceptable, noting the failure to call or notify officially; this resulted in a suspension without pay for 20 days as per the October 3, 1990 memorandum.

Respondent was absent again, claiming that his eldest and youngest daughters were sick and confined at a nearby clinic.
He was reminded, via a memorandum, of the requirement for a written application prior to a leave of absence without pay.
After reporting for work and providing an explanation in writing on June 17, 1991, his reason was deemed insufficient by petitioner.
This resulted in a suspension without pay for 45 days, effective July 17, 1991.

Respondent availed himself of a seven-day leave which he extended to complete his annual vacation leave.
He failed to report for work from February 11 to February 19, 1992.
Petitioner issued a memorandum on February 19, 1992, warning that failure to report within 72 hours would lead to termination for abandonment of work.
Although respondent did report and submitted an explanation asserting that he sought to prolong the payment of due accounts, his explanation was declared unacceptable.
Consequently, petitioner terminated his employment effective June 1, 1992 for having committed his third unauthorized absence within a three-year period.

On March 9, 1993, respondent filed a complaint alleging illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and claiming unpaid benefits including Christmas bonuses and rice subsidy.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision on May 13, 1994, declaring respondent’s dismissal legal while awarding financial assistance of P20,000, dismissing claims for bonuses and rice subsidy.
On January 30, 1997, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA’s decision, setting aside the dismissal and declaring it illegal.

The NLRC ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay full backwages until reinstatement.
Additional awards included unpaid wages, 13th month pay, Christmas bonuses, and accrued rice subsidy, subject to deduction for a 30-day suspension due to one unauthorized absence.

The Court of Appeals (CA) on April 24, 2000, affirmed and reiterated the NLRC decision, holding that:

Petitioner complied with due process requirements including the two-notice rule.
While the first two incidences of absence could be justified (or at least warrant a lighter penalty), the absence during February 11–19, 1992 was unauthorized and should have been penalized but not with termination.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 31, 2000.

Petitioner argued that all of respondent’s absences were unauthorized and that his previous disciplinary sanctions estopped him from questioning later decisions.
It contended that the totality of respondent’s infractions, including a propensity to disappear without proper notice, justified his dismissal.
Petitioner maintained that management’s right to enforce company rules and regulations should prevail over the employee’s explanations, regardless of his length of service.

Whether the dismissal of respondent Joey B. Teves was justified based on the alleged accumulation of unauthorized absences.

Was the termination legally supported given that only one of the absences (February 11–19, 1992) was found to be both unauthorized and unjustified?
Did petitioner comply with the due process requirements in handling respondent’s disciplinary cases?

Whether the application of the totality of infractions doctrine was appropriate in this case.

Can previous absences, including those with mitigating circumstances, be aggregated to validate dismissal?
Is there a reasonable proportionality between the offense committed and the penalty of dismissal?