Title
Supreme Court
Tolentino vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
Case
G.R. No. 160404
Decision Date
Jun 8, 2005
PLDT employee dismissed for illegal jumpering and cash shortage; Supreme Court upheld dismissal based on illegal jumpering, citing loss of trust and confidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160404)

Employment Background

Rogelio Tolentino was a dedicated employee with a long history at PLDT, starting in November 1980. His roles included being a digital electronic switching operator and maintenance technician, and he received numerous achievement awards. By April 1999, he held the position of Testboard Man II JG-5 at the PLDT Lucena Exchange.

Dismissal Events

On April 15, 1999, Tolentino received a dismissal memorandum effective April 16, 1999, for serious misconduct, specifically for a cash shortage amounting to ₱36,268.29 and for unauthorized modifications to telephone lines discovered on May 25, 1998. Following his dismissal, Tolentino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PLDT and Villareal.

Tolentino's Claims

Tolentino contended that his dismissal lacked factual and legal support and violated his right to due process. He alleged that the charges were fabricated in retaliation for providing an affidavit regarding a co-worker's disciplinary issues. Furthermore, he claimed that the alleged cash shortage and illegal jumpering attacks occurred during a time when he was not the acting coordinator at the implicated sites and that any irregularity was due to actions taken by other employees.

Respondents' Defense

The Respondents, led by Villareal, maintained that Tolentino was responsible for significant cash discrepancies and unauthorized line tapping. They pointed out that upon Tolentino's transfer to the Tayabas Sub-Exchange, irregularities were discovered in his handling of monetary collections, directly linking him to the cash shortages and the improper installation of phone lines.

Investigation Findings

Investigating personnel reported discrepancies in cash collections that Tolentino was accountable for, as well as illicit connections traced back to his residence. The findings of two Quality Control Engineers and corroborating testimonies established a basis for concluding that Tolentino was involved in the illegal activities, leading to his loss of trust.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

Initially, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Tolentino, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement along with back wages. The ruling emphasized a lack of compelling evidence linking Tolentino to the misconduct or proving wrongful intent on his part.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Involvement

The NLRC overturned the Labor Arbiter's decision, affirming the just cause for Tolentino's dismissal based on the credibly presented evidence, including affidavits and reports submitted by authorized personnel. The NLRC held that as a managerial employee, Tolentino's actions justified the loss of trust required for his position.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC's decision, asserting that Tolentino's position required a high level of trust and responsibility. They concluded that substantial evidence indicated his involvement in both the cash shortfall and the illegal wire tapping, which warranted his dismissal. The court clarified that mere alleg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.