Adm. Case No. 192-J - The Secretary of Justice vs. Honorable Vivencio M. Ruiz

Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 192-J)

Factual background: duties and requisition procedures

As Storekeeper, Domingo’s duties included maintaining inventory and requisitioning replenishment stock when base items (e.g., modems) fell below prescribed levels. Requisitions for base stock used PLD 140 forms (approved by an authorized representative) and for materials such as parallel wires and connectors used PLD 158 forms (accomplished by Combination Men, pre‑approved by their Supervisor/Team Leader, then submitted to the Storekeeper to withdraw materials from PLDT warehouses).

Factual background: transactional anomaly and audit

Transaction volumes rose sharply in 2002 compared to 2001 (PLD 140: from 3 to 102; PLD 158: from 277 to 1,336). PLD 158 withdrawals from Sucat and Reposo in 2002 totaled P17,081,843.31 versus approximately P1,069,285.36 in 2001. A December 2002 materials inventory revealed a significant discrepancy between requisitioned materials and actual usage/remaining inventory, prompting an internal investigation.

Investigation: documentary and testimonial findings

PLDT recovered most original warehouse copies of the contested 2002 PLD 140 and PLD 158 forms and detected forged signatures on "authorized by" and "received by" fields that differed from specimen signatures. DSIM Team Leaders and the employees whose signatures appeared denied authorizing or receiving the requisitions in sworn affidavits. Clerks Mendoza and Magahis averred that Domingo instructed them to type and prepare the PLD forms from handwritten notes he provided. Paradero identified Domingo as the recipient of materials at Reposo, and vehicle registry records showed Domingo’s physical presence at Sucat and Reposo on many relevant dates.

PLDT’s administrative actions and procedural invitations

PLDT issued three written invitations (May 14, May 25, and June 7, 2004) requesting Domingo’s personal appearance for a formal inquiry; Domingo refused to acknowledge receipt and did not attend any scheduled inquiry. After completing a multi‑year investigation (Investigation Report dated January 19, 2005) and issuing a Request for Explanation (February 21, 2005) requiring Domingo’s written explanation within 72 hours, PLDT received a written response from Domingo on February 24, 2005 denying the allegations and contesting non‑receipt of investigative materials. PLDT thereafter issued a Notice of Termination dated May 18, 2005, dismissing Domingo for serious misconduct and reserving other remedies to recover losses.

Administrative and quasi‑judicial proceedings below

Domingo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, which was dismissed on July 25, 2006, finding PLDT presented substantial evidence of Domingo’s involvement in fraudulent requisitions. The NLRC denied Domingo’s appeal (Resolution June 27, 2007). Domingo then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging, inter alia, condonation under the CBA, lack of proper show‑cause notices, failure to furnish investigative materials, insufficiency of evidence, and denial of procedural due process. The CA granted Domingo’s petition and declared the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees. PLDT sought review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Issue presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the CA erred in annulling the NLRC resolution given that Domingo failed to establish grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC (i.e., lack or excess of jurisdiction) sufficient to justify overturning the NLRC’s factual findings that PLDT proved, by substantial evidence, serious misconduct.

Standard of review: grave abuse of discretion and Rule 65 limitations

The Court reiterated that findings of fact of quasi‑judicial labor tribunals enjoy finality when supported by substantial evidence, and that Rule 65 review by appellate courts is limited to errors amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction and must be patent and gross. The CA may reverse labor tribunal factual findings only upon clear showing of such grave abuse.

Evidentiary quantum in illegal dismissal cases: substantial evidence

The Court confirmed that the employer’s burden in illegal dismissal cases is to prove the cause by substantial evidence — evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is a lower standard than proof beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance, and it does not require moral certainty of guilt.

Application to serious misconduct elements

Relying on the Investigation Report and the testimony and documentary evidence compiled by PLDT, the Court assessed the three elements of serious misconduct under established jurisprudence: seriousness of the act, relation to the employee’s duties, and unfitness to continue employment. The Court found that (1) the use of forged PLD forms to requisition materials, resulting in P17,115,796.34 in material losses, was a serious act; (2) the offense related directly to Domingo’s role as Storekeeper and exploited the trust inherent to custodial functions; and (3) the loss of trust and the monetary loss rendered Domingo unfit to continue employment. The Court found Domingo’s denials and explanations (including claims of lack of training and following instructions) unconvincing in light of transaction patterns, his central role in requisition processes, clerks’ affidavits, Paradero’s identification, and vehicle registry entries showing his presence at relevant warehouses.

Presumption from possession and use of forged documents

Consistent with NLRC reasoning cited in the record, the Court noted that possession and use of forged documents without satisfactory explanation give rise to a presumption of forgery or causation of forgery, citing prior authority applied by the NLRC in reaching its conclusion.

Procedural due process: notice, opportunity to be heard, and formal hearing

The Court applied settled labor jurisprudence requiring two written notices (specifying charges and informing of dismissal decision) and an opportunity to be heard; it emphasized that an actual formal hearing is not an indispensable requirement so long as the emplo

Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 192-J)

Case Caption, Court and Decision

Case title: PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. CECILIO Z. DOMINGO, RESPONDENT.
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division.
G.R. No.: 197402.
Decision penned by Justice Gaerlan; concurrence by Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ.
Final disposition: Petition for Review on Certiorari dated August 12, 2011 granted; Decision dated January 31, 2011 and Resolution dated June 22, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107672 reversed and set aside; Resolution dated June 27, 2007 of the National Labor Relations Commission reinstated. (Decision date: June 30, 2021.)

Factual Antecedents — Employment and Assignment

Respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo (Domingo) employed by PLDT as an Installer/Repairman since October 14, 1980.
In May 2001 Domingo was assigned as temporary Storekeeper at PLDT’s Data Services Installation Maintenance Division (DSIM), Tambo, Pasay City (DSIM Tambo Warehouse).
Domingo was appointed permanent Storekeeper of the DSIM Tambo Warehouse in June 2001.
As Storekeeper, Domingo’s responsibilities included ensuring adequate inventory and requisitioning replenishment stock from PLDT warehouses when base stock fell below certain levels.

Requisition Procedures and Form Types

Storekeepers must accomplish requisition form PLD 140 when base stock modems fall below a certain limit; accomplished PLD 140 must be approved by an authorized representative and brought to PLDT warehouses to withdraw materials.
Combination Men (DSIM personnel) must accomplish requisition form PLD 158 to order materials such as parallel wires, connectors, clamps, electrical tapes; PLD 158 requires listing materials, quantities, and the project name.
PLD 158 forms must be approved by the Supervisor/Team Leader and submitted to the Storekeeper, who brings them to PLDT warehouses to withdraw materials for Combination Men.

Requisition Activity Data and Anomalies

Year 2001 DSIM Tambo Warehouse transactions: three PLD 140 transactions and 277 PLD 158 transactions.
Year 2002 DSIM Tambo Warehouse transactions: increased to 102 PLD 140 transactions and 1,336 PLD 158 transactions.
Material requisitions using PLD 158 forms in 2002, withdrawn from DSIM Sucat and Reposo Satellite Warehouses, amounted to P17,081,843.31 (as reported in the source for 2002 withdrawals).
PLDT conducted a materials inventory in December 2002 because of the drastic increase in requisitions and discovered a large discrepancy between total materials requisitioned and materials actually used or in inventory.

PLDT Investigation — Retrievals, Forgeries and Witnesses

PLDT retrieved 88 out of 102 original warehouse copies of 2002 PLD 140 forms and 1,121 out of 1,336 original warehouse copies of 2002 PLD 158 forms.
Examination of PLD forms revealed signatures in the “authorized by” and “received by” portions were forged and different from specimen signatures on file.
DSIM Team Leaders who allegedly signed the “authorized by” portions—Vicente Ramos, Ernesto Alejandro, Ramir Espeno, and Alfred May—submitted sworn affidavits denying authorizing or signing the PLD forms, and stated quantities on PLD forms were abnormally large and that requisitioning from Metro Manila was impractical for provincial employees.
Eight employees whose signatures appeared in the “received by” portions—Agripino Rivera, Wilfredo Salvador, Antonio Aquino, Fracel Gammad, Bernardo Neria, Renato Romero, Romeo Cayabyab, and Luciano Cambronero—declared the signatures were not theirs.
Nimrod Paradero (Storekeeper, DSIM Reposo Satellite Warehouse) in a sworn affidavit positively identified Domingo as the person who presented the forged PLD forms and received the listed materials.
Vehicle Security Registry for DSIM Reposo showed Domingo went to Reposo on dates mentioned by Paradero using PLDT service vehicle Fleet No. 96-450; DSIM Sucat Vehicle Security Registry showed Domingo went to Sucat on at least 65 separate occasions when forged PLD forms were presented.
Clerks Maritess Mendoza and Sheryl Marie Magahis submitted sworn statements that Domingo asked them to prepare and type PLD forms based on handwritten notes he provided.

PLDT’s Administrative Steps — Invitations to Appear

PLDT issued a Memorandum dated May 14, 2004 (First Invitation) requesting Domingo to appear with a Union Council Representative or counsel on May 19, 2004 for a formal inquiry concerning issuance of outside plant materials covering January to October 2002 and specific inquiries based on PLD 158, PLD 22, and PLD 140 forms.
Domingo refused to receive the First Invitation and failed to attend the scheduled inquiry.
PLDT issued a second Memorandum dated May 25, 2004 (Second Invitation) inviting Domingo for a formal inquiry on May 28, 2004, noting prior non-acknowledgement; Domingo again did not acknowledge receipt and did not attend.
PLDT issued a third Memorandum dated June 7, 2004 (Third Invitation) setting a final appearance for June 10, 2004 and warning that failure to attend would compel preparation of an investigation report based on evidence at hand without Domingo being heard.
Domingo failed to appear at the June 10, 2004 inquiry; PLDT proceeded with the investigation without Domingo’s cooperation.

Investigation Report and Recommendation

PLDT completed its Investigation Report dated January 19, 2005 after a three-year investigation due to voluminous documents and many interviews.
The Investigation Report recommended instituting administrative action for serious misconduct against Domingo based on findings including:
- Sworn testimonies from DSIM Team Leaders denying their signatures and stating requisitions were improper and impractical.
- DSIM Team Leaders’ testimony that quantities listed were in excess of typical requirements.
- Audit/inventory showing materials requisitioned under forged PLD forms were unaccounted for.
- Sworn testimonies of Mendoza and Magahis confirming Domingo instructed them to type and prepare forged PLD forms.
- Vehicle Security Registry reports showing Domingo personally went to Sucat and Reposo on dates corresponding to forged PLD forms.
- Positive identification by Paradero that Domingo received the materials under the forged PLD forms.

Request for Explanation and Domingo’s Response

PLDT issued a Request for Explanation dated February 21, 2005 stating investigative findings of voluminous requisitions unaccounted for costing the company P17,115,796.34 in material losses and alleging withdrawals when requisitioning employees were absent and authorized signatories were fo