G.R. No.

197402, June 30, 2021

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,

Petitioner, v. CECILIO Z. DOMINGO, Respondent.

DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated

August 12, 2011 filed by petitioner Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT) praying for the reversal of the
Decision2 dated January 31, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated
June 22, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case entitled,
"Cecilio Z. Domingo v. National Labor Relations Commission,"
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 107672.

The Factual Antecedents

Respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo (Domingo) has been employed

by PLDT as an Installer/Repairman since October 14, 1980.4 In
May 2001, Domingo was assigned as a temporary Storekeeper
in one of PLDT's Data Services Installation Maintenance
Divisions (DSIM), located in Tambo, Pasay City (DSIM Tambo
Warehouse). Thereafter, he was appointed as permanent
Storekeeper of the DSIM Tambo Warehouse in June 2001.5

As Storekeeper, Domingo's responsibilities included ensuring

an adequate inventory of supplies in the DSIM Tambo
Warehouse. Thus, whenever the inventory went below a
certain level, Domingo, as Storekeeper, was tasked to
requisition replenishment stock from PLDT's warehouses. For
this purpose, Storekeepers accomplish specific requisition
forms where the materials to be requested are listed, and such
forms are brought to PLDT's warehouses so that such
materials can be withdrawn and brought to the different DSIM
warehouses.6

Particularly, Storekeepers are required to accomplish

requisition form PLD 140, whenever their base stock modems,
required for the installation and maintenance of PLDT's data
services, went below a certain limit. Accomplished PLD 140
forms must be approved by the authorized representative and
then brought to the DSIM warehouse where the materials
needed may be withdrawn. Meanwhile, to order materials such
as parallel wires, connectors, clamps, and electrical tapes,
DSIM personnel called Combination Men must accomplish
requisition form PLD 158, where they must list the particular
materials and the number of units required. The Combination
Men must likewise specify the name of the project for which
such materials will be used. Upon accomplishing the PLD 158
forms, the Combination Men must have the same approved by
their Supervisor/Team Leader, and thereafter, the
Combination Men must submit the accomplished PLD 158
forms to the Storekeeper. The Storekeeper will then bring the
PLD 158 forms to regular PLDT warehouses and withdraw the
materials for use by the Combination Men.7

In 2001, the first year Domingo was assigned to the DSIM

Tambo Warehouse, the DSMI Tambo Warehouse transacted
only a total of three PLD 140 forms. In 2002, however, the
DSIM Tambo Warehouse showed a drastic increase in DSIM
requisitions, from merely three PLD 140 form transactions
to a total of 102 PLD 140 form transactions. On the other
hand, for PLD 158 form transactions, the DSIM Tambo
Warehouse had a total of 277 transactions for 2001
which likewise drastically increased to 1,336 PLD 158
form transactions in 2002. Relevantly, the materials
requisitioned using the PLD 158 forms in 2002, which were
withdrawn from the DSIM Sucat and Reposo Satellite
Warehouses, amounted to P17,081,843.31, which is
significantly greater than the P1,069,285.36 spent for
materials requisitioned under PLD 1588 forms in 2001.8

Because of the drastic increase in materials requisitioned,

PLDT conducted a materials inventory in December 2002.
Upon audit, PLDT discovered that there was a huge
discrepancy between the total volume of materials
requisitioned, and those materials actually used in PLDT's
projects and the remaining inventory in the DSIM Tambo
Warehouse. Because of such anomaly, PLDT decided to
conduct an investigation.9

During the investigation, PLDT was able to retrieve 88 out of

the 102 original warehouse copies of the 2002 PLD 140 forms,
and 1,121 out of the 1,336 original warehouse copies of the
2002 PLD 158 forms. Notably, a simple examination of these
PLD forms reveals that the signatures of the supposed
"authorized by" and "received by" personnel were forged and
glaringly different from the specimen signatures of the same
employees on file. Thus, PLDT invited these employees for
investigation where they disclaimed that those signatures
were theirs. Particularly, the Team Leaders who supposedly
signed the "authorized by" portion of the forged PLD forms,
namely, Vicente Ramos, Ernesto Alejandro, Ramir Espeno, and
Alfred May (DSIM Team Leaders), all submitted sworn
affidavits strongly denying that they have authorized or signed
the PLD forms. These DSIM Team Leaders further contended
that the quantity of materials listed under the PLD forms were
abnormally large, and that it was impractical for them to
requisition materials from warehouses located in Metro Manila
when there are PLDT warehouses which are nearer to their
respective areas in Davao, Zamboanga, Butuan City, Panay,
and Negros.10

Further, PLDT likewise invited eight of its employees whose

signatures appeared in the "received by" portion of the forged
PLD forms, namely, Agripino Rivera, Wilfredo Salvador,
Antonio Aquino, Fracel Gammad, Bernardo Neria, Renato
Romero, Romeo Cayabyab, and Luciano Cambronero.
Similarly, they all stated that the signatures appearing in the
PLD forms are not theirs.11

During the investigation, PLDT likewise interviewed Nimrod

Paradero (Paradero), the Storekeeper of the DSIM Reposo
Satellite Warehouse, to determine who received the
requisitioned materials listed in the PLD forms. Relevantly, in
his sworn affidavit, Paradero positively identified Domingo as
the person who presented the forged PLD forms, and received
the materials listed herein.12 Paradero's statements were
likewise validated by the DSIM Reposo Satellite Warehouse
Vehicle Security Registry, which showed that on the dates
mentioned by Paradero, Domingo indeed went to the DSIM
Reposo Satellite Warehouse using a PLDT service vehicle, with
Fleet No. 96-450. Likewise, the DSIM Sucat Satellite
Warehouse Vehicle Security Registry showed that Domingo
went to the DSIM Sucat Satellite Warehouse on at least 65
separate occasions when the forged PLD forms were
presented.13
Moreover, clerks of PLDT submitted sworn statements that
Domingo asked them to prepare the forged PLD forms.
Particularly, Maritess Mendoza (Mendoza) stated that
Domingo, on several occasions, handed her pieces of papers
with handwritten notes of the materials needed and their
corresponding quantities. Thereafter, Domingo instructed her
to type the same on the PLD forms. Notably, Mendoza's
statements were corroborated by Sheryl Marie Magahis
(Magahis) in her affidavit, where she testified that she once
helped Mendoza type and prepare the PLD 158 forms upon the
instruction of Domingo.14

Because of the claims of Domingo's involvement in the above-

stated anomalies, PLDT issued a Memorandum dated May 14,
2004 (First Invitation) inviting Domingo to appear at a formal
inquiry scheduled on May 19, 2004.15 The First
Invitation reads:

You are hereby requested to personally appear together with a

Union Council Representative or a Counsel of your preference
at Field Operations Division office located at 4th Floor, PLDT
Garnet Building, Emerald Avenue corner Garnet Street,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City on May 19, 2004 (Wednesday) or
three (3) working days upon receipt of this invitation at about
9:00 o'clock in the morning.

This is in connection with the formal inquiry in your

issuance of outside plant materials to personnel of Data
Services Installation and Maintenance (DSIM) Division
covering January to October 2002 in line with your special
function as internal custodian of DSIM Satellite Warehouse at
Tambo, Pasay Exchange during the period January to October
2002.

Specific inquiries shall be based on materials requisitions

that were allegedly transacted to you by your colleagues
or personnel at DSIM using accomplished and signed
PLD 158 (Requisitions for Materials and Supplies), PLD
22 (Requisitions for Reserved materials) and PLD 140
(Requisitions for Department Accountabilities) covering
the year 2002.
This invitation is issued for your compliance.16 (Emphasis
supplied)

Notably, Domingo refused to receive the First Invitation, and

failed to attend the scheduled formal inquiry.17 Nevertheless,
in PLDT's hopes of acquiring the cooperation of Domingo in
determining the truth of the anomalous transactions involving
the forged PLD forms, PLDT again issued another
Memorandum dated May 25, 2004 (Second Invitation), inviting
Domingo to attend another formal inquiry scheduled on May
28, 2004, which reads:

This is in relation to our memo with Ref No. 045-02-FOD with

subject INVITATION TO APPEAR dated May 14, 2004, wherein
you chose not to acknowledge receipt during the formal
issuance to you by our Mr. Maliksi last May 18, 2004 and
again by your immediate supervisor in Mr. Espeno last May
24, 2004.

We are inviting you for the 2nd time to personally appear

together with a Union Council Representative or a Counsel of
your preference at Field Operations Division office located at
4th Floor, PLDT Garnet Building, Emerald Avenue corner
Garnet Street, Ortigas Center, Pasig City on May 28, 2004
(Friday) or three (3) working days upon receipt of this
invitation at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning.

This is in connection with the formal inquiry in your

issuance of outside plant materials to personnel of Data
Services Installation and Maintenance (DSIM) Division
covering January to October 2002 in line with your special
function as internal custodian of DSIM Satellite Warehouse at
Tambo, Pasay Exchange during the period January to October
2002.

Specific inquiries shall be based on materials requisitions

that were allegedly transacted to you by your colleagues
or personnel at DSIM using accomplished and signed
PLD 158 (Requisitions for Materials and Supplies, PLD
22 (Requisitions for Reserved materials) and PLD 140
(Requisitions for Department Accountabilities) covering
the year 2002.
This invitation is issued for your compliance.18 (Emphasis
supplied)

Again, Domingo did not acknowledge receipt of the Second

Invitation. Domingo likewise did not attend the scheduled
formal inquiry on May 28, 2004. Thus, PLDT was constrained
to issue a third Memorandum dated June 7, 2004 (Third
Invitation), which provides:

Regarding your election not to receive and acknowledge our

1st and 2nd INVITATION TO APPEAR memos with Ref Nos. 045-
02-FOD dated May 14, 2004 and 051-02-FOD dated May 25,
2004 which, were correspondingly and formally issued to you
by our Mr. Maliksi and Mr. Espeno, your immediate
supervisor.

We are requesting you for the 3rd and final time to personally
appear most preferably with a Union Council Representative
or a Counsel of your preference at Field Operations Division
office located at 4th Floor, PLDT Garnet Building, Emerald
Avenue corner Garnet Street Ortigas Center Pasig City on June
10, 2004 (Thursday) or three (3) working days upon receipt of
this invitation at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning.

This is in connection with the formal inquiry in your

issuance of outside plant materials to personnel of Data
Services Installation and Maintenance (DSIM) Division
covering January to October 2002 in line with your special
function as internal custodian of DSIM Satellite Warehouse at
Tambo, Pasay Exchange during the period January to October
2002.

Specific inquiries shall be based on materials requisitions

that were allegedly transacted to you by your colleagues
or personnel at DSIM using accomplished and signed
PLD 158 (Requisitions for Materials and Supplies, PLD
22 (Requisitions for Reserved materials) and PLD 140
(Requisitions for Department Accountabilities) covering
the year 2002.

Failure to attend to our 3rd and final Invitation to Appear

shall compel us to prepare investigation report based on
evidence at hand without you being heard.
This invitation is issued for your compliance.19

For a third time, Domingo failed to appear at the formal

inquiry scheduled on June 10, 2004. As such, PLDT proceeded
with the investigation without the cooperation of Domingo.
However, due to the invariably voluminous documents
required to be reviewed, and the number of personnel
interviewed, PLDT was only able to conclude its investigation
after three years in its Investigation Report20 dated January 19,
2005 (Investigation Report). The Investigation Report
ultimately recommended that an administrative action for
serious misconduct be instituted against Domingo as he used
his knowledge, skills, and authority as Storekeeper in making
various fraudulent requisitions of outside plant materials
which were verified to be unaccounted for, based on the
following:

First, all DSIM Team Leaders, submitted sworn testimonies

stating that their signatures appearing in the "authorized by"
portion of the forged PLD forms were falsified. In fact, the
DSIM Team Leaders, who are all assigned in areas outside
of Metro Manila, stated that it is impractical and even
ridiculous for provincial employees to requisition materials
from warehouses in Manila since there are several PLDT
warehouses located near their areas. Even more, the DSIM
Team Leaders contended that requisitioning materials from
Metro Manila is violative of PLDT's warehousing procedure,
which requires that provincial employees must requisition
materials and supplies only at warehouses serving their
areas.21

Second, the DSIM Team Leaders testified that the materials

requisitioned under the forged PLD forms were in excess of
the typical requirements needed for PLDT's private line's
installation and maintenance. 22

Third, based on audit and inventory conducted at the DSIM

Tambo Warehouse, it was discovered that the materials
requisitioned under the forged PLD forms were unaccounted
for.23
Fourth, the sworn testimonies of Mendoza and Magahis
confirm that Domingo was the one who instructed them to
type and prepare the forged PLD forms.24

Fifth, the Vehicle Security Registry reports for both the DSIM
Sucat and Reposo Satellite Warehouses show that Domingo
personally went to these locations on the dates when the
materials under the forged PLD forms were
requisitioned.25Sixth, Paradero, the Storekeeper of the DSIM
Reposo Satellite Warehouse, positively identified
Domingo as the person to whom he issued the materials listed
under the forged PLD forms.26

Because of the findings in the Investigation Report, PLDT

issued a Request for Explanation27 dated February 21, 2005
requiring Domingo to explain in writing why he should not be
dismissed from service. The Request for Explanation reads:

Investigative findings show that as the designated internal

storekeeper of DSIM during the period of January to
November 2002, you made voluminous requisition of outside
plant materials, which, when verified in the DSIM internal
warehouse, were unaccounted for. These unaccounted
materials would cost the Company 17,115,796.34 in material
losses. Moreover, the investigation findings also show that you
withdrew and received outside plant materials from the 3
Company warehouses when the employee requisitioning (as
evidenced by the attached requisitioning forms) is either on
vacation leave or assigned in the regional offices, and that the
authorized signatories were forged.

The acts described above constitute Serious Misconduct, the

penalty of which is dismissal from the service.

In view of the above, you are required to explain in writing

why you should not be dismissed from the service on the
above-mentioned acts. Submit your explanation within
seventy-two (72) hours upon receipt of this communication.
You may elect to be heard if you so desire.

Your failure to reply to this letter within the time

required shall be considered as a waiver of your right to
be heard on this matter. Accordingly, the Company shall
proceed with the evaluation of the case on the basis of
the evidence on hand.28 (Emphasis in the original)

On February 24, 2005, Domingo, with the assistance of

counsel, submitted a three-page letter,29 whereby he denied
the allegations made against him. In his letter, Domingo
questioned why he is being made to explain alleged
wrongdoings which were committed three years earlier. He
likewise stated that he was never informed that an
investigation was being conducted, and that he was never
furnished with copies of the documents and records which
form part of the evidence against him.

After review and perusal of all the available evidence,

including Domingo's response, PLDT found that Domingo is
guilty of serious misconduct and issued a Notice of
Termination30 dated May 18, 2005, which provides:

This has reference to your administrative case that as the

designated internal storekeeper of DSIM during the period of
January to November 2002, you made voluminous requisition
of outside plant materials, which, when verified in the DSIM
internal warehouse, were unaccounted for. These unaccounted
materials amounted to P17,115,796.34 in losses for the
Company. Moreover, it was shown that during the above-
mentioned period , you withdrew and received outside plant
materials from 3 Company warehouses when the employee
requisitioning is either on vacation leave or assigned in the
regional offices, and that the signatures of authorized
personnel in the requisitioning forms were forged. Said acts
constitute Serious Misconduct.

After careful evaluation of your case including your written

explanation, we find you liable as charged.

In view of the above, Management has decided to dismiss you

from the service for Serious Misconduct [effective at] the
close of business hours of May 18, 2005.

This is without prejudice to such other action as this Company

may take including court action to recover whatever amount is
due from under your accountabilities.31
Proceedings before the Labor Tribunals

Aggrieved of the decision of PLDT to terminate his

employment based on serious misconduct, Domingo filed a
Complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA),
with prayer for reinstatement and the payment of full
backwages.32

On July 25, 2006, the LA rendered his Decision33 which

dismissed Domingo's Complaint for lack of merit. The LA's
Decision found that PLDT was able to establish,
by substantial evidence, that Domingo was indeed involved
in the anomalous and fraudulent transactions concerning the
forged PLD forms, and that the same constitutes serious
misconduct, which is a just and valid ground for termination of
employment.

Unsatisfied with the LA's Decision, Domingo appealed the

same before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).34 However, in its Resolution35 dated June 27, 2007, the
NLRC denied Domingo's appeal:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant-Appellant's

Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
Decision appealed from is SUSTAINED in toto.

SO ORDERED.36

Petition before the Court of Appeals

Because of the adverse rulings of the LA and the NLRC,

Domingo assailed the NLRC's Resolution before the CA via
Petition for Certiorari37 dated March 5, 2009 under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.

In Domingo's Petition for Certiorari dated March 5, 2009, he

alleged that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
finding that he was validly dismissed from employment, and
that he was not denied due process of law.38 Particularly,
Domingo argued the following:

First, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it

found that the charges against Domingo have not yet been
condoned, considering that the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between PLDT and its employees provides
that offenses are deemed condoned if no show cause
memorandum is issued within two years from discovery of the
offense:

An offense shall be deemed condoned if no "show-cause"

memorandum is issued by the COMPANY to the concerned
employee with in two (2) years from date of discovery of the
offense if punishable by termination; or within one (1) year
from date of discovery of the offense, for all offenses not
punishable by termination.39

Considering that the Request for Explanation was issued in

2005, or three years since the discovery of the supposed
anomalies, such offense has already been condoned by virtue
of the above-cited provision.40

Second, the NLRC erred when it considered the First, Second,

and Third Invitations as the "show cause" notices
contemplated in the above-cited provision because the Labor
Code itself provides that such notices must contain the
statement of the causes for termination.41

Third, even assuming that the First, Second, and Third

Invitations can be considered as the "show cause" notices, the
NLRC still committed grave abuse of discretion when it held
that Domingo was validly dismissed, considering that PLDT
presented no proof that Domingo was properly furnished with
copies of the same.42

Fourth, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in

finding that PLDT was able to demonstrate by substantial
evidence Domingo's participation in the falsification of the
forged PLD forms since the sworn statements relied on by
PLDT failed to attach original copies of the forged PLD forms,
and the mere testimonies of PLDT's personnel must not be
readily believed.43

Fifth, the NLRC committed a grave error when it found that

procedural due process was observed, considering that no
hearing or conference was conducted, and Domingo was not
furnished with copies of the investigative findings, nor was he
confronted with all of the evidence against him.44
On January 31, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant Petition

is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of public
respondent NLRC dated June 27, 2007 and November 28,
2008 are hereby SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby declared
illegally dismissed. Consequently, private respondent PLDT is
hereby ordered to reinstate petitioner to his former position
without loss of seniority or diminution of benefits with full
backwages from the time of his dismissal up to the time of his
reinstatement. Likewise, PLDT is directed to pay attorney's
fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award.

SO ORDERED.45

In reversing the Resolution of the NLRC, the CA found that

PLDT failed to overcome the quantum of substantial evidence
needed to establish that Domingo was guilty of serious
misconduct.46

In this regard, the CA was unconvinced with the testimonies

presented by PLDT. Likewise, the CA found that there was no
malicious intent on the part of Domingo in using the forged
PLD forms, and as such, his dismissal is illegal.47 Furthermore,
the CA found that no proof was submitted to show that
the First, Second and Third Invitations were presented and
actually rejected by Domingo. Finally, the CA stated that there
was no clear showing that Domingo was furnished with a copy
of the Investigation Report.48

Aggrieved, PLDT filed its Motion for Reconsideration which

was denied by the CA in the Resolution dated June 22, 2011.49

The Instant Petition

In view of the adverse rulings of the CA, PLDT came before

this Court by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, where PLDT raised the following
issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS

COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN GIVING DUE COURSE
TO DOMINGO'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE WAS NOT
ABLE TO ESTABLISH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE NULLIFICATION OF THE
DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION.50

In fine, in the instant Petition, PLDT principally argued the

following:

First, the CA committed a grave error when it annulled the

Resolution of the NLRC considering that Domingo failed to
demonstrate that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the said Resolution.51

Second, the findings of the NLRC are supported by testimonial

and documentary evidence which is sufficient to overcome the
quantum of substantial evidence required in illegal dismissal
cases.52

Third, the NLRC was correct when it found that Domingo was
not denied due process because Domingo was given an ample
opportunity to be heard.53

Fourth, considering that Domingo was validly dismissed, the

CA erred when it ordered PLDT to reinstate Domingo, and to
pay him backwages and attorney's fees.54

Our Ruling

We find the Petition meritorious.

The Court Of Appeals Can Reverse And Modify The

Findings Of Fact Of The NLRC Only If Grave Abuse Of
Discretion Exists.

Preliminarily, it must be stressed that findings of fact of quasi-

judicial agencies such as those of the NLRC must be accorded
great respect and even finality when supported by substantial
evidence.55 Still, the CA is granted limited jurisdiction under
Rule 65 to review, reverse, and modify the factual findings of
the labor tribunals when grave abuse of discretion exists:
We have ruled in a litany of cases that resort to judicial review
of the decisions of the NLRC under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court is confined only to issues of want or excess of
jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
tribunal rendering them. It does not include an inquiry on the
correctness of the evaluation of evidence, which served as
basis for the labor official in determining his conclusion.
Findings of fact of administrative officers are generally given
finality. x x x.56

Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as "a capricious

and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough, it must be
so grave as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and
must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."57

Notably, this Court has had numerous occasions when it found

that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion and
allowed the modification and reversed of its factual findings,
such as when there is an arbitrary disregard of the evidence
on record, or when the labor tribunals have misappreciated
the evidence to such an extent as to compel a contrary
conclusion if such evidence had been properly appreciated.58

Clearly, therefore, before the CA may reverse and modify the

factual findings of the labor tribunals, there must be a clear
showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
Otherwise stated, the CA's inquiry in petitions
for certiorari under Rule 65 must be limited to whether the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in arriving at its
factual findings.59

Applying the foregoing in the present case, We fail to see any

grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC to justify the
CA's modification and reversal of the NLRC's factual findings,
considering that the NLRC judiciously reviewed the records of
the case and based its ruling on the substantial evidence
presented by both parties.

The Quantum of Proof Required In Illegal Dismissal

Cases Is Merely Substantial Evidence.

As correctly pointed out by PLDT, the quantum of proof

required in illegal dismissal cases is substantial
evidence.60 This Court has already clarified that substantial
evidence is only such evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion:

In this regard, it is a well-established rule that the party-

litigant who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary
to establish his/her claim has the burden of proving the same
by the amount of evidence required by law, which, in labor
proceedings, is substantial evidence, or "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion." To be clear, in the hierarchy of
evidentiary values, "proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed
at the highest level , followed by clear and convincing
evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial
evidence, in that order." Thus, in the hierarchy of evidence,
it is the least demanding. "Corollarily, the ground for the
dismissal of an employee does not require proof beyond
reasonable doubt." The quantum of proof required is merely
substantial evidence � which only entails evidence to
support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally
reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise."61 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Thus, in illegal dismissal cases, the employer need only

present evidence which is adequate to support a conclusion,
and not evidence which will establish moral certainty of guilt
on the part of the employee.

In the present case, the cause of Domingo's dismissal is

serious misconduct. Relevantly, in Maula v. Ximex Delivery
Express, Inc.,62 this Court has explained what the Labor Code
contemplates as serious misconduct:

Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct; it is the

transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. The
misconduct, to be serious within the meaning of the Labor
Code must be of such a grave and aggravated character
and not merely trivial or unimportant. Thus, for
misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for
dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the
performance of the employee's duties; and (c) it must show
that the employee has become unfit to continue working
for the employer.63 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

This means that in justifying Domingo's dismissal, PLDT had

the burden to prove, with substantial evidence, that the acts of
Domingo: (1) were of a serious nature; (2) related to his duties
as a Storekeeper of the DSIM Tambo Warehouse; and (3) has
made him unfit to continue working for PLDT.

In this regard, both the LA and the NLRC found that PLDT was
able to overcome the burden of proving, with substantial
evidence, that Domingo committed serious misconduct, and as
such, the dismissal of Domingo was justified.

To recall, PLDT presented numerous witnesses, documentary

evidence, and a complete Investigation Report which
concluded that Domingo was indeed involved in a fraudulent
scheme in using forged PLD forms to requisition outside plant
materials, which, when audited, were found to be unaccounted
for. The records likewise bear that Domingo undisputedly used
and presented the forged PLD forms. Such possession and use
of the said forged PLD forms already gives rise to the
presumption that Domingo was involved in the fraudulent
scheme against PLDT. As succinctly ruled by the NLRC:

We hold that since Complainant-Appellant was found in

possession of forged PLD 158s which he used, as substantially
evidenced by the foregoing pieces of evidence, and since he
failed to make a satisfactory explanation of his involvement in
the anomalous requisitions, he is guilty of falsification.

As aptly held on the matter by the Supreme Court, in the case

of Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-21846, March 31, 1967
"(I)n the absence of satisfactory explanation, a person who is
found in possession of a forged document and who used the
same, is the forger thereof, or the one who caused the forgery,
and therefore, he is guilty of falsification."64
In stark contrast to the overwhelming evidence presented by
PLDT, Domingo merely presented bare denials. He mentioned
that he was merely following instructions, and that he could
not have known about the proper procurement procedures
because Domingo supposedly never received formal training
for his position as a Storekeeper.

We are unconvinced with Domingo's bare denials and self-

serving evidence. While it may be true that he did not receive
any training for his position as Storekeeper, it must be
recalled that he was assigned to that position as early as May
2001, and any and all anomalies only commenced in 2002. This
means that for at least six months, he learned and properly
followed PLDT's procurement procedure. Furthermore, as the
Storekeeper beginning May 2001, he was personally aware
that the DSIM Tambo Warehouse only had a total of three PLD
140 form transactions and 277 PLD 158 form transactions in
2001. Clearly, it is incredulous to claim that he was unaware of
any anomaly since the amount of transactions involving both
PLD 140 and PLD 158 forms had an unusual, drastic, and
sharp increase in 2002. Thus, he cannot feign ignorance and
pretend to have only been following instructions when, as
Storekeeper, he was personally involved in all of the said
transactions.

Given the foregoing, this Court finds that PLDT was able to
prove, with substantial evidence, that Domingo's termination
based on serious misconduct is valid, considering that:

First, the act of knowingly using the forged PLD forms to

requisition materials is of a serious matter that cost PLDT
P17,115,796.34 in material losses.

Second, the offense committed by Domingo relates to his

functions as the Storekeeper of the DSIM Tambo Warehouse.
As Storekeeper, his functions required the full trust and
confidence of PLDT since he was in charge with the custody of
materials and equipment. Evidently, as a Storekeeper,
Domingo was able to utilize his knowledge and access to
PLDT's materials when he engaged in the fraudulent
transactions.
Third, because of Domingo's acts, he is no longer fit to
continue his employment with PLDT, considering the latter's
loss of trust and confidence in Domingo, and the monetary
losses PLDT endured because of the fraudulent scheme.

In sum, We find that the CA erred when it disturbed the

factual findings of the NLRC as PLDT sufficiently established
with substantial evidence Domingo's valid cause for
termination.

Domingo Was Not Denied Due Process Of Law.

Contrary to the ruling of the CA, We find that Domingo was not
denied due process of law.

In a plethora of cases, this Court has already elucidated the

requirements to observe procedural due process in
termination cases. In Distribution & Control Products,
Inc./Tiamsic v. Santos,65 it has been explained that two written
notices are required to be furnished to the employee before his
or her termination of employment. In the same case, it has
likewise been ruled that a formal hearing is not necessary so
long as the employee was granted an opportunity to be heard:

[T]he settled rule is that in termination proceedings of

employees, procedural due process consists of the twin
requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must
furnish the employee with two written notices before the
termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first
apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions
for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the
second informs the employee of the employer's decision
to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied
with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and
not necessarily that an actual hearing was
conducted.66 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Here, Domingo was furnished two written notices before

his employment was terminated: (1) the Request for
Explanation; and (2) the Notice of Termination.

As recited above, in the Request for Explanation, PLDT

outlined the particular acts which were the subject of the
serious misconduct charge against Domingo. The Request for
Explanation likewise asked Domingo to respond and explain
his side within 72 hours from his receipt of the same. Finally,
the Request for Explanation informed Domingo that a hearing
may be had if he so desires.

Domingo did respond to the Request for Explanation by

submitting a three-page letter where he unsatisfactorily
explained his defense. Notably, nowhere in his response
did he request that a formal hearing be conducted.

Upon review of all the evidence on record, as well as

Domingo's response, PLDT issued the Notice of Termination
where Domingo was informed that he was being dismissed
from service.

With the foregoing, it is clear that all the requisites of

procedural due process were complied with. Nevertheless,
while this Court is satisfied that procedural due process was
observed in the present case, We deem it best to resolve the
other arguments that Domingo raised to supposedly show that
he was deprived of his right to due process.

The Offense Committed Has Not Yet Been

Condoned.

In his submissions, Domingo insists that his offense has

supposedly already been condoned pursuant to the provision
in the CBA, considering that the Notice to Explain was only
issued to him three years after the supposed discovery of the
offense. On this note, we cannot fault PLDT for the delay in the
issuance of the Request for Explanation precisely because
Domingo was also at fault when he intentionally failed to
cooperate in the investigation being conducted by PLDT.

As discussed above, PLDT issued three invitations �

the First, Second, and Third Invitations � asking Domingo to
appear in a formal inquiry. During the scheduled formal
inquiries, Domingo could have already explained his side and
presented his defense, which would have enabled PLDT to
unravel the truth and conclude its investigation with more
haste. However, and as seen in the annotations written in
the First, Second, and Third Invitations, Domingo refused to
acknowledge receipt of the same, which resulted in further
delays in the investigation. It must be stressed that We cannot
subscribe to Domingo's view that no proof was presented with
regard to his receipt of these invitations. Such view is not only
self-serving, but likewise appears to be ridiculous when
juxtaposed to the fact that PLDT attempted to serve a copy of
the invitation to appear three times, on three separate
occasions. Thusly, PLDT's narrative that Domingo refused to
receive the same holds more water.

We likewise echo the view of the NLRC that these invitations

were already akin to the "show cause" memorandum required
under the CBA, considering that the same already informed
Domingo that a formal inquiry will be conducted whereby he
will be asked about his involvement in the fraudulent use of
the forged PLD forms. Prescinding from this discussion, it is
clear that the offense committed by Domingo cannot be
considered to have been already condoned.

A Formal Hearing Is Not Required In Illegal

Dismissal Cases.

In Domingo's submissions, he also argues that a formal

hearing is required to ensure that procedural due process is
observed. He likewise contends that since a formal hearing
was not conducted, he was deprived of the opportunity to
cross-examine PLDT's witnesses, and make an intelligent
defense.

These arguments are devoid of merit.

As stated above, jurisprudence is clear that a formal hearing is

not necessary as long as the employee is given an ample
opportunity to be heard. Our ruling in Perez v. Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company,67 is instructive:

Article 277(b) of the Labor Code provides that, in cases of

termination for a just cause, an employee must be given
"ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself." Thus,
the opportunity to be heard afforded by law to the employee is
qualified by the word "ample" which ordinarily means
"considerably more than adequate or sufficient." In this
regard, the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" can be
reasonably interpreted as extensive enough to cover actual
hearing or conference. To this extent, Section 2(d), Rule I of
the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code is in
conformity with Article 277(b).

Nonetheless, Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of

Book VI of the Labor Code should not be taken to mean
that holding an actual hearing or conference is a
condition sine qua non for compliance with the due
process requirement in termination of employment. The
test for the fair procedure guaranteed under Article 277(b)
cannot be whether there has been a formal pretermination
confrontation between the employer and the employee. The
"ample opportunity to be heard" standard is neither
synonymous nor similar to a formal hearing. To confine
the employee's right to be heard to a solitary form narrows
down that right. It deprives him of other equally effective
forms of adducing evidence in his defense. Certainly, such an
exclusivist and absolutist interpretation is overly restrictive.
The "very nature of due process negates any concept of
inflexible procedures universally applicable to every
imaginable situation."

xxxx

Significantly, Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of

Book VI of the Labor Code itself provides that the so-called
standards of due process outlined therein shall be observed
"substantially", not strictly. This is a recognition that while
a formal hearing or conference is ideal, it is not an
absolute, mandatory or exclusive avenue of due
process.68 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In the present case, Domingo cannot validly aver that his right
to due process was violated because a hearing was not
conducted considering that the conduct of a formal hearing is
not even essential in the first place. Even more, PLDT, in the
Request for Explanation, expressly gave Domingo the
opportunity to request for a formal hearing, which Domingo
failed to do. Hence, Domingo cannot be allowed to blame PLDT
when he himself is at fault.
The Right To Cross-Examine Is Not Indispensable Since
The Technical Rules Of Evidence Need Not Be Strictly
Applied In Labor Cases.

Notably, in his submissions before this Court, Domingo

likewise argued that he was denied due process because he
was unable to cross-examine PLDT's witnesses. In support of
his argument, Domingo cited the case of Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v.
Agad,69 where this Court considered as hearsay evidence the
testimonies of the witnesses therein since no cross-
examination was held.

To clarify, in Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Agad, We did not

categorically declare that the right to cross-examine witnesses
in illegal dismissal cases is indispensabie in order to satisfy the
requirements of due process. At best, such statement was
mere obiter dictum since it did not pertain to the key issue in
the said case. In this regard, the settled doctrine that the
technical rules of evidence are not strictly applied in labor
cases70 still stands.

In fact, this Court has already had the occasion of applying this
well-settled doctrine vis-a-vis the right to cross-examine
witnesses in labor cases:

[J]urisprudence is replete with rulings that administrative

bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and
procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law.
Hence, whatever merit C.F. Sharp�s argument might have
in the context of ordinary civil actions, where the rules of
evidence apply with greater rigidity, disappears when adduced
in connection with labor cases.

The claim of denial of due process on the part of C.F. Sharp

must also be rejected. The essence of due process lies in the
reasonable opportunity afforded a party to be heard and to
submit any evidence in support of its defense. What is vital is
not the opportunity to cross�-examine an adverse
witness, but an opportunity to be heard.71 (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)
Further, in the recent case of Smart Communications, Inc. v.
Solidum,72 this Court explicitly stated that cross-examination is
not necessary in labor cases:

It is not necessary that witnesses be cross-examined by

counsel of the adverse party in proceedings before the
labor arbiter

Solidum further alleges that he was denied the right to cross-

examine the witnesses who submitted affidavits in favor of
Smart; thus, the affidavits must be considered hearsay and
inadmissible. In support of such contention, Solidum
cites Naguit v. National Labor Relations Commission.

Such contention is misplaced.

The controlling jurisprudence on the matter is the ruling in the

more recent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v.
Honrado, where the Court ruled:

It is hornbook in employee dismissal cases that "[t]he essence

of due process is an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's
side x x x. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and
in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of
which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy." Neither is it necessary that the witnesses be
cross-examined by counsel for the adverse party.

The Court explained the reason why cross-examination is not

required in the proceedings before the labor arbiter in Reyno
v. Manila Electric Company, citing Rabago v. National Labor
Relations Commission where the Court ruled:

x x x. The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the

affiants were not presented for cross-examination is not
persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly
observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the
NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position
papers only. x x x.
Clearly, the alleged denial of Solidum's request to cross-
examine the witnesses of Smart does not render their
affidavits hearsay. Thus, these pieces of evidence were
properly considered by the labor tribunal.73 (Emphasis in the
original, citations omitted)

Given the foregoing, it is apparent that Domingo's argument is

devoid of merit, considering that he was granted an ample
opportunity to be heard, even though he was unable to cross-
examine PLDT's witnesses.

On another note, the rule that the technical rules of evidence

may be relaxed in labor cases is similarly applicable in
resolving Domingo's claim that the evidence attached to
PLDT's affidavits are mere photocopies, and thus, should not
be given credence.

Considering that rules of evidence need not be strictly applied

in labor cases, We hold that the NLRC did not err when it gave
evidentiary weight to the affidavits presented by PLDT,
notwithstanding the fact that the attachments therein are
mere photocopies.

All said, this Court grants the instant Petition. We find that the
NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it
affirmed the factual findings of the LA that Domingo's
dismissal is valid. The termination not being illegal, We
likewise overturn the CA's grant of reinstatement, backwages,
and attorney's fees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

Review on Certiorari dated August 12, 2011 filed by Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company is GRANTED. The
Decision dated January 31, 2011 and the Resolution dated June
22, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107672 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Resolution dated
June 27, 2007 of the National Labor Relations Commission
is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Carandang,

and Zalameda, JJ., concur.