10) PLDT vs NLRC
Facts:
Private respondent Lettie Corpuz was employed as traffic
operator at the Manila International Traffic Division (MITD)
by the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT)
for ten years and nine months, from September 19, 1978,
until her dismissal on June 17, 1989. Her primary task was
to facilitate requests for incoming and outgoing international
calls through the use of a digital switchboard.
Sometime in December 1987, PLDT’s rank-and-file employees and telephone operators went on
strike, prompting the supervisors of the MITD to discharge the former’s duties to prevent a total
shutdown of its business operations. “While in the course of their emergency assignments, two
supervisors almost simultaneously received two different requests for overseas calls bound for different
Middle East countries and both callers reported the same calling number (98-68-16).” The tone
verifications having yielded negative results, the callers were advised to hang up their telephones to
enable the supervisors to effect an alternative verification system by calling the same number again. As in
the first instance, the number remained unverified. Investigating the seemingly anomalous incident, the
matter was reported to the Quality Control Inspection Department (QCID) which revealed that the subject
number was temporarily disconnected on June 10, 1987, and permanently on September 24, 1987. It also
showed that 439 overseas calls were made through the same number between May and November 1987.
On account of such disclosure, the microfiches containing the completed calls through telephone
number 98-68-16 were ordered to be re-run. It yielded the following results:
respondent handled 56 or 12.8% of the total calls, while the other operators had an average of only 1.8%
calls each;
Premised on the above findings, on July 26, 1988, MITD
Manager Erlinda Kabigting directed respondent to explain her alleged infraction, that is, facilitating 34
calls using the disconnected number. Instead of tendering the required explanation, respondent requested
a formal investigation to allow her to confront the witnesses and rebut the proofs that may be brought
against her. On grounds of serious misconduct and breach of trust, the Legal Department recommended
her dismissal. In a letter dated June 16, 1989, respondent was terminated from employment effective the
following day.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by respondent
against petitioner, Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera rendered a
decision, ordering the respondent company to reinstate the complainant to her former position with all the
rights, benefits and privileges thereto appertaining including seniority plus backwages, which was
affirmed by NLRC.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the complainant was valid.
Held:
No. Time and again, this Court has reminded employers that while the power to dismiss is a
normal prerogative of the employer, the same is not without limitations. The right of an employer to
freely discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State, basically through the exercise of its
police power. This is so because the preservation of the lives of citizens is a basic duty of the State, an
obligation more vital than the preservation of corporate profits.
The records show, however, that the subject phone calls were neither unusual nor coincidental as other
operators shared similar experiences. A certain Eric Maramba declared that it is not impossible for an
operator to receive continuous calls from the same telephone number. He testified that at one time, he was
a witness to several calls consistently effected from 9:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. The calls having passed the
verification tone system, the incident was undoubtedly alarming enough but there was no way that he or
his cooperators could explain the same.
This Court agrees with the labor arbiter when he stated
that the more frequent handling by the respondent of overseas calls from the same calling number than
other operators does not give rise to the conclusion that, indeed, respondent was a party to such
anomalous transaction.
This Court will not sanction a dismissal premised on mere
conjectures and suspicions. To be a valid ground for respondent’s dismissal, the evidence must be
substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant his
separation from work.
It should be borne in mind that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving
that the dismissal is for just cause failing which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and the
employee is entitled to reinstatement. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the
opportunity to explain one’s side or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of.
