G.R. No. 160404 - Tolentino vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

The petitioner, Rogelio L. Tolentino, was employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) since November 3, 1980, and received several achievement awards throughout his career.
PLDT sponsored his study-training in Munich, Germany, enhancing his technical expertise in digital electronic switching and maintenance.
He was entrusted with important responsibilities, including the establishment of the Mauban Sub-Exchange in Quezon and later held the position of Testboard Man II (JG-5) at the Lucena Exchange, indicating a recognized level of competence and trust.

On April 15, 1999, Tolentino received a memorandum from Senior Manager Ernesto V. Villareal of the Lucena Exchange which dismissed him effective the following day.
The grounds for dismissal centered on two primary allegations:

A cash shortage amounting to ₱36,268.29 and an unaccounted change fund of ₱1,000.00 reportedly occurring at the Tayabas Sub-Exchange on May 25–26, 1998.
The illegal jumpering (or tapping) of specific telephone line numbers (042-714300 and 042-712273) which was linked to the installation of unauthorized wiring and connections.

Prior to the dismissal, Tolentino had been transferred on May 1, 1998 as Acting Coordinator at the Tayabas Sub-Exchange where he assumed custody of collections kept in a safety digital vault.
Subsequent events included:

Discovery by Switching Engineer Pedrito Oblea that certain telephone booths at the Lucena Exchange exhibited illegal jumper installations, with wires traced to Tolentino’s residence.
An ocular inspection conducted by engineers and security personnel which, among other findings, noted discrepancies in the contents of the vault and anomalies with telephone line terminations.

On July 14, 1999, Tolentino filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleging illegal dismissal and asserting his right to reinstatement, backwages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC and later the Labor Arbiter rendered conflicting decisions:

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in Tolentino’s favor, declaring the dismissal illegal due to the respondents’ failure to adduce substantial evidence regarding the alleged shortage and illegal tapping.
The NLRC, however, reversed this decision by finding just causes for the dismissal, basing its conclusion on various affidavits, reports (including those by Punto, Oblea, Jimenez, and Quismundo), and the security logbook.

On January 20, 2003, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Tolentino’s petition, affirming the NLRC decision. The CA highlighted:

Tolentino’s position of trust and his accountability as the acting coordinator during the period in question.
The existence of a presumption against him regarding the missing funds, reinforced by substantive evidence such as Punto’s affidavit and other documentary and physical evidence.

The discrepancy between the recorded total collection (₱57,728.29) for May 25–26, 1998, and the amount actually found in the vault (₱21,460.00) discovered by Ferrer G. Punto and other witnesses.
The fact that Tolentino was the accountable officer for the vault’s contents, creating a presumption of responsibility.

Findings from the Quality Control and Inspection (QCI) Division, which pointed out that illegal jumpers on telephone lines terminated at Tolentino’s residence.
Ocular inspections and technical tests verifying the physical presence of unauthorized wiring, coupled with Tolentino’s inability to provide a credible explanation for such installations.

The charges were concocted and driven by ulterior motives, notably his execution of an affidavit supporting a coworker.
He had not had direct control or personal turnover of the vault funds, and the evidence linking him to the alleged jumpering was circumstantial and based on his presence at the site without corroborative testimonies from key eyewitnesses.

Whether Tolentino’s dismissal from PLDT was legally justified, particularly under the allegations of grave misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
Whether the imposition of a managerial duty compounded the gravity of the alleged infractions.

Whether the evidence adduced—primarily the affidavit of Ferrer G. Punto—was sufficient to establish that the total collection for May 25–26, 1998 was indeed ₱57,728.29.
Whether the absence of corroborative evidence such as the Columnar Book or inventory reports weakens the respondents’ case.

Whether the physical evidence (ocular inspections, wiring terminations at Tolentino’s residence, and technical assessments) conclusively proved his involvement in illegal jumpering.
Whether Tolentino’s explanation regarding his limited control of the telephone line and his claim of innocence were adequately rebutted by the evidence.

Whether Tolentino was deprived of due process in light of the manner and timing of the investigations and the issuance of memoranda.
Whether the findings of the NLRC and the CA were based on “substantial evidence” and not merely on surmises or conjectures.