Title
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 111933
Decision Date
Jul 23, 1997
A PLDT operator dismissed for alleged fraudulent calls was reinstated after courts ruled insufficient evidence of misconduct, emphasizing burden of proof on employers.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200102)

Background of the Case

Lettie Corpuz was employed at the Manila International Traffic Division (MITD) within PLDT. Following a strike by rank-and-file employees in December 1987, her supervisors temporarily took on the duties of the traffic operators. During this time, two supervisors handled incoming calls from an anomalous telephone number (98-68-16) that had been disconnected. Investigating the calls made through this number revealed an extensive number of international calls had been processed, with a significant portion being managed by Corpuz.

Findings and Allegations Leading to Dismissal

Investigation by PLDT's Quality Control Inspection Department established that Corpuz handled 34 calls after the number's disconnection without adhering to the requisite verification processes. On July 26, 1988, Corpuz was asked to explain her actions but instead requested a formal investigation, which did not occur as she had intended. The Legal Department recommended her dismissal based on serious misconduct and loss of trust. Consequently, she was terminated effective June 17, 1989.

Legal Proceedings and Labor Arbiter's Ruling

Corpuz subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PLDT. Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera delivered a ruling in favor of Corpuz on February 28, 1991, ordering her reinstatement with back wages amounting to P103,381.50 and attorney’s fees. This ruling was upheld in full by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on November 16, 1992, which also denied PLDT’s motion for reconsideration on August 20, 1993.

Review of Dismissal Justifications

The Supreme Court reviewed the case under the premise that dismissals must be supported by substantial evidence rather than mere speculation. The Court emphasized that the employer's prerogative to terminate an employee is subject to state regulations protecting labor rights. It found no substantial evidence that Corpuz acted fraudulently or that her handling of the calls constituted defrauding the company. Both the evidence and testimonies indicated that continuous calls from disconnected numbers could occur, especially when considering testimony from other operators regarding similar phenomena.

Due Process and Labor Rights

The ruling underscored the importance of due process in employment dismissal cases, particularly that the employee must be granted a fair opportunity to explain their side. The employer

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.