TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT In these situations, and in the exercise of its

management prerogative the employer is

a. Due Process justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal
on the erring employee
Due process in the context of
employment termination is the right of b. Authorized causes
an employee to be notified of the reason
for his or her dismissal and, in case of Authorized causes are grounds for
just causes, to be provided the separation of employment
opportunity to defend himself or herself
It is called authorized causes because the
i. Substantive Due Process and Procedural separation from employment is justified due
Due Process to a legitimate business reason or a
requirement by law or regulations.
Due process is comprised of two
components — substantive due process In these situations, and in the exercise of its
which requires the intrinsic validity of the management prerogative, the employer is
law in interfering with the rights of the justified letting go of the employee who is
person to his life, liberty, or property, and not at fault and thus given a separation pay
procedural due process which consists of
the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as 3. Consequence if no substantive due
well as the guarantee of being heard by an process
impartial and competent tribunal (Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 1993 Ed., pp. 102-106). if there is no substantive due process, such
as there is no just cause or authorized cause,
Substantive due process in the termination or separation from
employment of an employee, the employer
Substantive due process is divided into two, may be held liable for illegal dismissal
namely: (a) just causes and (b) authorized
causes legal dismissal may result in the employer
being held liable for full backwages,
a. Just causes reinstatement, moral damages, exemplary
damages, monetary claims, attorney's fees.
Just causes are grounds for termination of
employment Procedural Due Process

It is called just causes because the 4. Before terminating the services of an

termination of employment is justified due employee, what procedure should the
to an employee's actions, behavior, or employer observe?
omission, either of which resulted in a
serious or grave violation of the law, An employer shall observe procedural due
employment contract, company policies. process before terminating one’s
collective bargaining agreement, and any employment.
other employment agreement
5. What are the components of procedural
due process?
A. In a termination for just cause, due Before the Court is a petition for review on
process involves the two-notice rule: certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision[1] and
a) A notice of intent to dismiss specifying Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA),
the ground for termination, and giving said dated November 22, 2013 and May 20,
employee reasonable opportunity within 2014, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No.
which to explain his or her side; 125911. The questioned CA Decision
affirmed the May 16, 2012 Decision[3] and
b) A hearing or conference where the June 25, 2012 Resolution[4] of the National
employee is given opportunity to respond to Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
the charge, present evidence or rebut the which, in turn affirmed, with modification
evidence presented against him or her; the January 30, 2012 Decision[5] of the
Labor Arbiter (LA), which found herein
c) A notice of dismissal indicating that upon respondent illegally dismissed and ordered
due consideration of all the circumstances, his reinstatement and payment of his full
grounds have been established to justify backwages.
termination.
The pertinent factual and procedural
B. In a termination for an authorized cause, antecedents of the case are as follows:
due process means a written notice of
dismissal to the employee specifying the Herein petitioner is a domestic corporation
grounds at least 30 days before the date of engaged in the business of selling and
termination. A copy of the notice shall also distributing electrical products and
be furnished the Regional Office of the equipment with petitioner Vincent M.
Department of Labor and Employment Tiamsic as its president. Respondent, on the
(DOLE) where the employer is located. other hand, was employed as petitioners'
company driver.

On July 25, 2011, herein respondent filed

1. Distribution and Control Products v. against herein petitioners a complaint for
Jeffrey Santos, GR No. 212616, 10 July constructive illegal dismissal and payment
2017 of separation pay. In his Position Paper[6],
respondent contended that: he started
DISTRIBUTION & CONTROL working as petitioners' company driver on
PRODUCTS, INC./VINCENT M. April 5, 2005; on December 16, 2010, he
TIAMSIC, PETITIONERS, V. JEFFREY E. received a notice informing him that he was
SANTOS, RESPONDENT. being placed under preventive suspension
for a period of thirty (30) days beginning
December 17, 2010 because he was one of
the employees suspected of having
DECISION participated in the unlawful taking of circuit
breakers and electrical products of
PERALTA, J.: petitioners; a criminal complaint was filed
against him and several other persons with
the Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong
City; he immediately inquired from
petitioner company's Human Resources account as to how these products had gone
Department as to the exact reason why he missing from the warehouse and office
was suspended because he was never given building; as such, petitioners filed a criminal
the opportunity to explain his side before he complaint for qualified theft and, thereafter,
was suspended but the said Department did they suspended herein respondent; and after
not give him any concrete explanation; and the lapse of his suspension, respondent no
after the lapse of his 30-day suspension he longer returned to work.
was no longer allowed to return to work
without any justification for such On January 30, 2012, the LA handling the
disallowance. case rendered his Decision finding
respondent to be illegally terminated from
On their part, petitioners claimed in their his employment, thus, ordering his
Position Paper[7] that: they employed reinstatement and payment of his full
respondent as their company driver whose backwages amounting to P297,916.67. The
job included the delivery of items purchased LA held that herein petitioners had the
by customers, receipt documentation and burden of proving that respondent's
recording of previously purchased products dismissal was valid and their failure to
which were returned by customers and discharge this burden only means that the
coordination with the company dismissal was not justified and, therefore,
warehouseman and the accounting illegal.
department concerning all items which are
subject of delivery and receipt by the Petitioners filed an appeal with the NLRC.
company; on February 19, 2010, petitioner
corporation, through its hired auditors, On May 16, 2012, the NLRC promulgated
conducted a physical stock inventory of all its Decision dismissing petitioners' appeal
materials stored in the company's warehouse and affirming, with modification, the
and in its office building; after such decision of the LA. In addition to the
inventory, it was found out that a number of payment of backwages, the NLRC ordered
electrical materials and products with an petitioners to pay respondent separation pay
estimated value of P457,394.35, were equivalent to one (1) month for every year
missing; a subsequent inventory on April 24, of service, instead of reinstatement.
2010 likewise revealed that a 2000-ampere
circuit breaker worth P106,341.75 was also Petitioners filed a Motion for
missing, as well as thirty-seven (37) pieces Reconsideration but the NLRC denied it in
of 40-ampere circuit breakers which had a its Resolution dated June 25, 2012.
total value of P39,940.04; herein respondent
and the company warehouseman were the Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for
only persons who had complete access to the certiorari with the CA.
company warehouse as they were entrusted
with the handling of all products from the On November 22, 2013, the CA rendered its
company's suppliers; considering the size assailed Decision denying the certiorari
and weight of the missing items, they can petition and affirming the questioned NLRC
only be carried by no less than two (2) Decision and Resolution.
persons; petitioners demanded an
explanation from respondent and the
warehouseman, but they failed to make an
Petitioners filed a Motion for hand, constitutes the procedural due process
Reconsideration, but it was likewise denied right of an employee.
in the CA Resolution of May 20, 2014.
The violation of either the substantial due
Hence, the present petition for review on process right or the procedural due process
certiorari anchored on the following issues: right of an employee produces different
results. Termination without a just or
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF authorized cause renders the dismissal
APPEALS INTRUDED INTO THE RIGHT invalid, and entitles the employee to
OF THE EMPLOYER TO DISMISS AN reinstatement without loss of seniority rights
EMPLOYEE WHOSE CONTINUED and other privileges and full backwages,
EMPLOYMENT IS INIMICAL TO THE inclusive of allowances, and other benefits
EMPLOYER'S INTEREST; [AND] or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time the compensation was not paid up
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF to the time of actual reinstatement.
APPEALS ERRED IN DECIDING THE
INSTANT CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH An employee's removal for just or
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT authorized cause but without complying
DECISIONS, i.e., WHERE DISMISSED with the proper procedure, on the other
EMPLOYEE FOR VALID GROUND hand, does not invalidate the dismissal. It
SHOULD BE PAID ONLY NOMINAL obligates the erring employer to pay nominal
DAMAGES, IF THE TWO-NOTICE RULE damages to the employee, as penalty for not
IS NOT COMPLIED WITH.[8] complying with the procedural requirements
of due process.
The petition lacks merit.
Thus, two separate inquiries must be made
Our Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence in resolving illegal dismissal cases: first,
uniformly guarantee to every employee or whether the dismissal had been made in
worker tenurial security.[9] What this means accordance with the procedure set in the
is that an employer shall not dismiss an Labor Code; and second, whether the
employee except for a just or authorized dismissal had been for just or authorized
cause and only after due process is observed. cause.[12]
[10]
As to substantive due process, this Court, in
In the case of Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative,
Casas,[11] this Court held: Inc., et al. v. Cagampang, et al.,[13] held
that:
In determining whether an employee's
dismissal had been legal, the inquiry focuses In termination cases, the burden of proof
on whether the dismissal violated his right to rests upon the employer to show that the
substantial and procedural due process. An dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure
employee's right not to be dismissed without to do so would necessarily mean that the
just or authorized cause as provided by law, dismissal was illegal. The employer's case
is covered by his right to substantial due succeeds or fails on the strength of its
process. Compliance with procedure evidence and not on the weakness of the
provided in the Labor Code, on the other employee's defense. If doubt exists between
the evidence presented by the employer and Second, the employer must establish the
the employee, the scales of justice must be existence of an act justifying the loss of trust
tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the and confidence.[19] To be a valid cause for
quantum of proof required in determining dismissal, the act that betrays the employer's
the legality of an employee's dismissal is trust must be real, i.e., founded on clearly
only substantial evidence. Substantial established facts, and the employee's breach
evidence is more than a mere scintilla of of the trust must be willful, i.e., it was done
evidence or relevant evidence as a intentionally, knowingly and purposely,
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to without justifiable excuse.[20] Moreover,
support a conclusion, even if other minds, with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss
equally reasonable, might conceivably opine of trust and confidence, as ground for valid
otherwise.[14] dismissal, requires proof of involvement in
the alleged events in question, and that mere
In the instant case, petitioners contend that uncorroborated assertions and accusations
their termination of respondent's by the employer will not be sufficient.[21]
employment was based on their loss of trust
and confidence in him. Stated differently, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not needed to justify the loss as long
Loss of trust and confidence is a just cause as the employer has reasonable ground to
for dismissal under Article 282(c) of the believe that the employee is responsible for
Labor Code, which provides that an the misconduct and his participation therein
employer may terminate an employment for renders him unworthy of the trust and
"[f]raud or willful breach by the employee confidence demanded of his position.[22]
of the trust reposed in him by his employer Nonetheless, the right of an employer to
or duly authorized representative." dismiss employees on the ground of loss of
trust and confidence, however, must not be
However, in order for the employer to exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.
properly invoke this ground, the employer [23] Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of
must satisfy two conditions. confidence is without basis and may not be
successfully invoked as a ground for
First, the employer must show that the dismissal.[24] Loss of confidence as a
employee concerned holds a position of trust ground for dismissal has never been
and confidence.[15] Jurisprudence provides intended to afford an occasion for abuse by
for two classes of positions of trust.[16] The the employer of its prerogative, as it can
first class consists of managerial employees, easily be subject to abuse because of its
or those who, by the nature of their position, subjective nature and the loss must be
are entrusted with confidential and delicate founded on clearly established facts
matters and from whom greater fidelity to sufficient to warrant the employee's
duty is correspondingly expected.[17] The separation from work.[25] Thus, when the
second class includes "cashiers, auditors, breach of trust or loss of confidence alleged
property custodians, or those who, in the is not borne by clearly established facts, as
normal and routine exercise of their in this case, such dismissal on the cited
functions, regularly handle significant grounds cannot be allowed.[26]
amounts of [the employer's] money or
property."[18]
Applied to the present case, the LA, NLRC decision to dismiss him.[30] The
and the CA are unanimous in their finding requirement of a hearing is complied with as
that petitioners were not able to discharge long as there was an opportunity to be heard,
their burden of proving that their termination and not necessarily that an actual hearing
of respondent's employment was for a just was conducted.[31]
and valid cause. This is a question of fact
and it is settled that findings of fact of quasi- In Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera,[32]
judicial agencies are accorded great respect, this Court laid down the guidelines on how
even finality, by this Court.[27] This to comply with procedural due process in
proceeds from the general rule that this terminating an employee, to wit:
Court is not a trier of facts, as questions of
fact are contextually for the labor tribunals (1) The first written notice to be served on
to resolve, and only errors of law are the employees should contain the specific
generally reviewed in petitions for review on causes or grounds for termination against
certiorari criticizing the decisions of the CA. them, and a directive that the employees are
[28] given the opportunity to submit their written
explanation within a reasonable period.
It is true that respondent may indeed be "Reasonable opportunity" under the
considered as one who occupies a position Omnibus Rules means every kind of
of trust and confidence as he is one of those assistance that management must accord to
who were entrusted with the handling of a the employees to enable them to prepare
significant amount or portion of petitioners' adequately for their defense. This should be
products for sale. However, even a quick construed as a period of at least five (5)
perusal of the records at hand would show calendar days from receipt of the notice to
that petitioners failed to present substantial give the employees an opportunity to study
evidence to support their allegations that the accusation against them, consult a union
respondent had, in any way, participated in official or lawyer, gather data and evidence,
the theft of the company's stolen items and and decide on the defenses they will raise
that after his preventive suspension he no against the complaint. Moreover, in order to
longer reported for work. In other words, enable the employees to intelligently prepare
petitioners were not able to establish the their explanation and defenses, the notice
existence of an act justifying their alleged should contain a detailed narration of the
loss of trust and confidence in respondent. facts and circumstances that will serve as
basis for the charge against the employees.
As to whether or not respondent was A general description of the charge will not
afforded procedural due process, the settled suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically
rule is that in termination proceedings of mention which company rules, if any, are
employees, procedural due process consists violated and/or which among the grounds
of the twin requirements of notice and under Art. 282 is being charged against the
hearing.[29] The employer must furnish the employees.
employee with two written notices before
the termination of employment can be (2) After serving the first notice, the
effected: (1) the first apprises the employee employers should schedule and conduct a
of the particular acts or omissions for which hearing or conference wherein the
his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second employees will be given the opportunity to:
informs the employee of the employer's (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the
charge against them; (2) present evidence in allegation and the Court finds no cogent
support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the reason to depart from such finding.
evidence presented against them by the
management. During the hearing or WHEREFORE, the instant petition for
conference, the employees are given the review on certiorari is DENIED. The
chance to defend themselves personally, Decision and Resolution of the Court of
with the assistance of a representative or Appeals, dated November 22, 2013 and May
counsel of their choice. Moreover, this 20, 2014, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No.
conference or hearing could be used by the 125911, are AFFIRMED.
parties as an opportunity to come to an
amicable settlement. SO ORDERED.

(3) After determining that termination of 2. PLDT v. Domingo, GR No. 197402,

employment is justified, the employers shall 30 January 2021
serve the employees a written notice of
termination indicating that: (1) all IRST DIVISION
circumstances involving the charge against
the employees have been considered; and (2)
grounds have been established to justify the
severance of their employment.[33] G.R. No. 197402, June 30, 2021

In the instant case, the LA, the NLRC and

the CA again uniformly ruled that
respondent was dismissed sans procedural PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
due process. The only notice given by TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v.
petitioners to respondent was the notice of CECILIO Z. DOMINGO, Respondent.
his 30-day preventive suspension and, as
found by the LA, nothing therein indicated
that he was required nor was given the
opportunity to explain his side, considering DECISION
that he was being implicated in the theft of
the subject circuit breakers and other
electrical products. It is true that petitioners
conducted their own investigation but the GAERLAN, J.:
same was made without the participation of
respondent.

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on

Certiorari1 dated August 12, 2011 filed by
As to the required notice of termination, petitioner Philippine Long Distance
petitioners allege that they did not terminate Telephone Company (PLDT) praying for the
respondent from his employment and that it reversal of the Decision2 dated January 31,
was the latter who actually decided to 2011 and the Resolution3 dated June 22,
abandon his job. However, the LA, the 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the
NLRC and the CA again unanimously found case entitled, "Cecilio Z. Domingo v.
that petitioners failed to substantiate their
National Labor Relations Commission," and then brought to the DSIM warehouse
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 107672. where the materials needed may be
withdrawn. Meanwhile, to order materials
such as parallel wires, connectors, clamps,
and electrical tapes, DSIM personnel called
The Factual Antecedents Combination Men must accomplish
requisition form PLD 158, where they must
list the particular materials and the number
of units required. The Combination Men
Respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo (Domingo) must likewise specify the name of the
has been employed by PLDT as an project for which such materials will be
Installer/Repairman since October 14, used. Upon accomplishing the PLD 158
1980.4 In May 2001, Domingo was assigned forms, the Combination Men must have the
as a temporary Storekeeper in one of same approved by their Supervisor/Team
PLDT's Data Services Installation Leader, and thereafter, the Combination
Maintenance Divisions (DSIM), located in Men must submit the accomplished PLD
Tambo, Pasay City (DSIM Tambo 158 forms to the Storekeeper. The
Warehouse). Thereafter, he was appointed as Storekeeper will then bring the PLD 158
permanent Storekeeper of the DSIM Tambo forms to regular PLDT warehouses and
Warehouse in June 2001.5 withdraw the materials for use by the
Combination Men.7

As Storekeeper, Domingo's responsibilities

included ensuring an adequate inventory of In 2001, the first year Domingo was
supplies in the DSIM Tambo Warehouse. assigned to the DSIM Tambo Warehouse,
Thus, whenever the inventory went below a the DSMI Tambo Warehouse transacted
certain level, Domingo, as Storekeeper, was only a total of three PLD 140 forms. In
tasked to requisition replenishment stock 2002, however, the DSIM Tambo
from PLDT's warehouses. For this purpose, Warehouse showed a drastic increase in
Storekeepers accomplish specific requisition DSIM requisitions, from merely three PLD
forms where the materials to be requested 140 form transactions to a total of 102 PLD
are listed, and such forms are brought to 140 form transactions. On the other hand,
PLDT's warehouses so that such materials for PLD 158 form transactions, the DSIM
can be withdrawn and brought to the Tambo Warehouse had a total of 277
different DSIM warehouses.6 transactions for 2001 which likewise
drastically increased to 1,336 PLD 158 form
transactions in 2002. Relevantly, the
materials requisitioned using the PLD 158
Particularly, Storekeepers are required to forms in 2002, which were withdrawn from
accomplish requisition form PLD 140, the DSIM Sucat and Reposo Satellite
whenever their base stock modems, required Warehouses, amounted to P17,081,843.31,
for the installation and maintenance of which is significantly greater than the
PLDT's data services, went below a certain P1,069,285.36 spent for materials
limit. Accomplished PLD 140 forms must requisitioned under PLD 1588 forms in
be approved by the authorized representative 2001.8
 Further, PLDT likewise invited eight of its
employees whose signatures appeared in the
Because of the drastic increase in materials "received by" portion of the forged PLD
requisitioned, PLDT conducted a materials forms, namely, Agripino Rivera, Wilfredo
inventory in December 2002. Upon audit, Salvador, Antonio Aquino, Fracel Gammad,
PLDT discovered that there was a huge Bernardo Neria, Renato Romero, Romeo
discrepancy between the total volume of Cayabyab, and Luciano Cambronero.
materials requisitioned, and those materials Similarly, they all stated that the signatures
actually used in PLDT's projects and the appearing in the PLD forms are not theirs.11
remaining inventory in the DSIM Tambo
Warehouse. Because of such anomaly,
PLDT decided to conduct an investigation.9
During the investigation, PLDT likewise
interviewed Nimrod Paradero (Paradero),
the Storekeeper of the DSIM Reposo
During the investigation, PLDT was able to Satellite Warehouse, to determine who
retrieve 88 out of the 102 original warehouse received the requisitioned materials listed in
copies of the 2002 PLD 140 forms, and the PLD forms. Relevantly, in his sworn
1,121 out of the 1,336 original warehouse affidavit, Paradero positively identified
copies of the 2002 PLD 158 forms. Notably, Domingo as the person who presented the
a simple examination of these PLD forms forged PLD forms, and received the
reveals that the signatures of the supposed materials listed herein.12 Paradero's
"authorized by" and "received by" personnel statements were likewise validated by the
were forged and glaringly different from the DSIM Reposo Satellite Warehouse Vehicle
specimen signatures of the same employees Security Registry, which showed that on the
on file. Thus, PLDT invited these employees dates mentioned by Paradero, Domingo
for investigation where they disclaimed that indeed went to the DSIM Reposo Satellite
those signatures were theirs. Particularly, the Warehouse using a PLDT service vehicle,
Team Leaders who supposedly signed the with Fleet No. 96-450. Likewise, the DSIM
"authorized by" portion of the forged PLD Sucat Satellite Warehouse Vehicle Security
forms, namely, Vicente Ramos, Ernesto Registry showed that Domingo went to the
Alejandro, Ramir Espeno, and Alfred May DSIM Sucat Satellite Warehouse on at least
(DSIM Team Leaders), all submitted sworn 65 separate occasions when the forged PLD
affidavits strongly denying that they have forms were presented.13
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 Moreover, clerks of PLDT submitted sworn
it was impractical for them to requisition statements that Domingo asked them to
materials from warehouses located in Metro prepare the forged PLD forms. Particularly,
Manila when there are PLDT warehouses Maritess Mendoza (Mendoza) stated that
which are nearer to their respective areas in Domingo, on several occasions, handed her
Davao, Zamboanga, Butuan City, Panay, pieces of papers with handwritten notes of
and Negros.10 the materials needed and their corresponding
quantities. Thereafter, Domingo instructed
her to type the same on the PLD forms.
Notably, Mendoza's statements were personnel at DSIM using accomplished and
corroborated by Sheryl Marie Magahis signed PLD 158 (Requisitions for Materials
(Magahis) in her affidavit, where she and Supplies), PLD 22 (Requisitions for
testified that she once helped Mendoza type Reserved materials) and PLD 140
and prepare the PLD 158 forms upon the (Requisitions for Department
instruction of Domingo.14 Accountabilities) covering the year 2002.

Because of the claims of Domingo's This invitation is issued for your

involvement in the above-stated anomalies, compliance.16 (Emphasis supplied)
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: 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
You are hereby requested to personally of Domingo in determining the truth of the
appear together with a Union Council anomalous transactions involving the forged
Representative or a Counsel of your PLD forms, PLDT again issued another
preference at Field Operations Division Memorandum dated May 25, 2004 (Second
office located at 4th Floor, PLDT Garnet Invitation), inviting Domingo to attend
Building, Emerald Avenue corner Garnet another formal inquiry scheduled on May
Street, Ortigas Center, Pasig City on May 28, 2004, which reads:
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 relation to our memo with Ref No.
045-02-FOD with subject INVITATION TO
APPEAR dated May 14, 2004, wherein you
This is in connection with the formal inquiry chose not to acknowledge receipt during the
in your issuance of outside plant materials to formal issuance to you by our Mr. Maliksi
personnel of Data Services Installation and last May 18, 2004 and again by your
Maintenance (DSIM) Division covering immediate supervisor in Mr. Espeno last
January to October 2002 in line with your May 24, 2004.
special function as internal custodian of
DSIM Satellite Warehouse at Tambo, Pasay
Exchange during the period January to
October 2002. 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
Specific inquiries shall be based on office located at 4th Floor, PLDT Garnet
materials requisitions that were allegedly Building, Emerald Avenue corner Garnet
transacted to you by your colleagues or Street, Ortigas Center, Pasig City on May
28, 2004 (Friday) or three (3) working days Regarding your election not to receive and
upon receipt of this invitation at about 9:00 acknowledge our 1st and 2nd INVITATION
o'clock in the morning. 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
This is in connection with the formal inquiry by our Mr. Maliksi and Mr. Espeno, your
in your issuance of outside plant materials to immediate supervisor.
personnel of Data Services Installation and
Maintenance (DSIM) Division covering
January to October 2002 in line with your
special function as internal custodian of We are requesting you for the 3rd and final
DSIM Satellite Warehouse at Tambo, Pasay time to personally appear most preferably
Exchange during the period January to with a Union Council Representative or a
October 2002. Counsel of your preference at Field
Operations Division office located at 4th
Floor, PLDT Garnet Building, Emerald
Avenue corner Garnet Street Ortigas Center
Specific inquiries shall be based on Pasig City on June 10, 2004 (Thursday) or
materials requisitions that were allegedly three (3) working days upon receipt of this
transacted to you by your colleagues or invitation at about 9:00 o'clock in the
personnel at DSIM using accomplished and morning.
signed PLD 158 (Requisitions for Materials
and Supplies, PLD 22 (Requisitions for
Reserved materials) and PLD 140
(Requisitions for Department This is in connection with the formal inquiry
Accountabilities) covering the year 2002. 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
This invitation is issued for your special function as internal custodian of
compliance.18 (Emphasis supplied) DSIM Satellite Warehouse at Tambo, Pasay
Exchange during the period January to
October 2002.

Again, Domingo did not acknowledge

receipt of the Second Invitation. Domingo
likewise did not attend the scheduled formal Specific inquiries shall be based on
inquiry on May 28, 2004. Thus, PLDT was materials requisitions that were allegedly
constrained to issue a third Memorandum transacted to you by your colleagues or
dated June 7, 2004 (Third Invitation), which personnel at DSIM using accomplished and
provides: 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.
 PLDT warehouses located near their areas.
Even more, the DSIM Team Leaders
Failure to attend to our 3rd and final contended that requisitioning materials from
Invitation to Appear shall compel us to Metro Manila is violative of PLDT's
prepare investigation report based on warehousing procedure, which requires that
evidence at hand without you being heard. provincial employees must requisition
materials and supplies only at warehouses
serving their areas.21

This invitation is issued for your

compliance.19
Second, the DSIM Team Leaders testified
that the materials requisitioned under the
forged PLD forms were in excess of the
For a third time, Domingo failed to appear at typical requirements needed for PLDT's
the formal inquiry scheduled on June 10, private line's installation and maintenance.
2004. As such, PLDT proceeded with the 22
investigation without the cooperation of
Domingo. However, due to the invariably
voluminous documents required to be
reviewed, and the number of personnel Third, based on audit and inventory
interviewed, PLDT was only able to conducted at the DSIM Tambo Warehouse,
conclude its investigation after three years in it was discovered that the materials
its Investigation Report20 dated January 19, requisitioned under the forged PLD forms
2005 (Investigation Report). The were unaccounted for.23
Investigation Report ultimately
recommended that an administrative action
for serious misconduct be instituted against
Domingo as he used his knowledge, skills, Fourth, the sworn testimonies of Mendoza
and authority as Storekeeper in making and Magahis confirm that Domingo was the
various fraudulent requisitions of outside one who instructed them to type and prepare
plant materials which were verified to be the forged PLD forms.24
unaccounted for, based on the following:

Fifth, the Vehicle Security Registry reports

First, all DSIM Team Leaders, submitted for both the DSIM Sucat and Reposo
sworn testimonies stating that their Satellite Warehouses show that Domingo
signatures appearing in the "authorized by" personally went to these locations on the
portion of the forged PLD forms were dates when the materials under the forged
falsified. In fact, the DSIM Team Leaders, PLD forms were requisitioned.25Sixth,
who are all assigned in areas outside of Paradero, the Storekeeper of the DSIM
Metro Manila, stated that it is impractical Reposo Satellite Warehouse, positively
and even ridiculous for provincial identified Domingo as the person to whom
employees to requisition materials from he issued the materials listed under the
warehouses in Manila since there are several forged PLD forms.26
 Your failure to reply to this letter within the
time required shall be considered as a waiver
Because of the findings in the Investigation of your right to be heard on this matter.
Report, PLDT issued a Request for Accordingly, the Company shall proceed
Explanation27 dated February 21, 2005 with the evaluation of the case on the basis
requiring Domingo to explain in writing of the evidence on hand.28 (Emphasis in the
why he should not be dismissed from original)
service. The Request for Explanation reads:

On February 24, 2005, Domingo, with the

Investigative findings show that as the assistance of counsel, submitted a three-page
designated internal storekeeper of DSIM letter,29 whereby he denied the allegations
during the period of January to November made against him. In his letter, Domingo
2002, you made voluminous requisition of questioned why he is being made to explain
outside plant materials, which, when verified alleged wrongdoings which were committed
in the DSIM internal warehouse, were three years earlier. He likewise stated that he
unaccounted for. These unaccounted was never informed that an investigation
materials would cost the Company was being conducted, and that he was never
17,115,796.34 in material losses. Moreover, furnished with copies of the documents and
the investigation findings also show that you records which form part of the evidence
withdrew and received outside plant against him.
materials from the 3 Company warehouses
when the employee requisitioning (as
evidenced by the attached requisitioning
forms) is either on vacation leave or After review and perusal of all the available
assigned in the regional offices, and that the evidence, including Domingo's response,
authorized signatories were forged. PLDT found that Domingo is guilty of
serious misconduct and issued a Notice of
Termination30 dated May 18, 2005, which
provides:
The acts described above constitute Serious
Misconduct, the penalty of which is
dismissal from the service.
This has reference to your administrative
case that as the designated internal
storekeeper of DSIM during the period of
In view of the above, you are required to January to November 2002, you made
explain in writing why you should not be voluminous requisition of outside plant
dismissed from the service on the above- materials, which, when verified in the DSIM
mentioned acts. Submit your explanation internal warehouse, were unaccounted for.
within seventy-two (72) hours upon receipt These unaccounted materials amounted to
of this communication. You may elect to be P17,115,796.34 in losses for the Company.
heard if you so desire. Moreover, it was shown that during the
above-mentioned period , you withdrew and
received outside plant materials from 3
Company warehouses when the employee establish, by substantial evidence, that
requisitioning is either on vacation leave or Domingo was indeed involved in the
assigned in the regional offices, and that the anomalous and fraudulent transactions
signatures of authorized personnel in the concerning the forged PLD forms, and that
requisitioning forms were forged. Said acts the same constitutes serious misconduct,
constitute Serious Misconduct. which is a just and valid ground for
termination of employment.

After careful evaluation of your case

including your written explanation, we find Unsatisfied with the LA's Decision,
you liable as charged. Domingo appealed the same before the
National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).34 However, in its Resolution35
dated June 27, 2007, the NLRC denied
In view of the above, Management has Domingo's appeal:
decided to dismiss you from the service for
Serious Misconduct [effective at] the close
of business hours of May 18, 2005.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Complainant-Appellant's Appeal is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly,
This is without prejudice to such other the Decision appealed from is SUSTAINED
action as this Company may take including in toto.
court action to recover whatever amount is
due from under your accountabilities.31

SO ORDERED.36

Proceedings before the Labor Tribunals

Petition before the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved of the decision of PLDT to

terminate his employment based on serious
misconduct, Domingo filed a Complaint for Because of the adverse rulings of the LA
Illegal Dismissal before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, Domingo assailed the
(LA), with prayer for reinstatement and the NLRC's Resolution before the CA via
payment of full backwages.32 Petition for Certiorari37 dated March 5,
2009 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

On July 25, 2006, the LA rendered his

Decision33 which dismissed Domingo's In Domingo's Petition for Certiorari dated
Complaint for lack of merit. The LA's March 5, 2009, he alleged that the NLRC
Decision found that PLDT was able to 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 Third, even assuming that the First, Second,
argued the following: 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,
First, the NLRC committed grave abuse of considering that PLDT presented no proof
discretion when it found that the charges that Domingo was properly furnished with
against Domingo have not yet been copies of the same.42
condoned, considering that the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between
PLDT and its employees provides that
offenses are deemed condoned if no show Fourth, the NLRC committed grave abuse of
cause memorandum is issued within two discretion in finding that PLDT was able to
years from discovery of the offense: 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
An offense shall be deemed condoned if no attach original copies of the forged PLD
"show-cause" memorandum is issued by the forms, and the mere testimonies of PLDT's
COMPANY to the concerned employee with personnel must not be readily believed.43
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 Fifth, the NLRC committed a grave error
punishable by termination.39 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
Considering that the Request for investigative findings, nor was he
Explanation was issued in 2005, or three confronted with all of the evidence against
years since the discovery of the supposed him.44
anomalies, such offense has already been
condoned by virtue of the above-cited
provision.40
On January 31, 2011, the CA rendered its
Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:
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 WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing,
Code itself provides that such notices must the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED.
contain the statement of the causes for The assailed Resolutions of public
termination.41 respondent NLRC dated June 27, 2007 and
November 28, 2008 are hereby SET ASIDE.
Petitioner is hereby declared illegally
dismissed. Consequently, private respondent The Instant Petition
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 In view of the adverse rulings of the CA,
dismissal up to the time of his reinstatement. PLDT came before this Court by way of a
Likewise, PLDT is directed to pay attorney's Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary 45 of the Rules of Court, where PLDT raised
award. the following issue:

SO ORDERED.45 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF

APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
ERROR IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO
DOMINGO'S PETITION FOR
In reversing the Resolution of the NLRC, CERTIORARI, NOTWITHSTANDING
the CA found that PLDT failed to overcome THE FACT THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE
the quantum of substantial evidence needed TO ESTABLISH GRAVE ABUSE OF
to establish that Domingo was guilty of DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
serious misconduct.46 OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION THAT
WOULD JUSTIFY THE NULLIFICATION
OF THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.50
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 In fine, in the instant Petition, PLDT
using the forged PLD forms, and as such, his principally argued the following:
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 First, the CA committed a grave error when
Domingo. Finally, the CA stated that there it annulled the Resolution of the NLRC
was no clear showing that Domingo was considering that Domingo failed to
furnished with a copy of the Investigation demonstrate that the NLRC committed grave
Report.48 abuse of discretion in issuing the said
Resolution.51

Aggrieved, PLDT filed its Motion for

Reconsideration which was denied by the Second, the findings of the NLRC are
CA in the Resolution dated June 22, 2011.49 supported by testimonial and documentary
evidence which is sufficient to overcome the
quantum of substantial evidence required in is confined only to issues of want or excess
illegal dismissal cases.52 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,
Third, the NLRC was correct when it found which served as basis for the labor official in
that Domingo was not denied due process determining his conclusion. Findings of fact
because Domingo was given an ample of administrative officers are generally given
opportunity to be heard.53 finality. x x x.56

Fourth, considering that Domingo was Grave abuse of discretion has been defined
validly dismissed, the CA erred when it as "a capricious and whimsical exercise of
ordered PLDT to reinstate Domingo, and to judgment as is equivalent to lack of
pay him backwages and attorney's fees.54 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
Our Ruling 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
We find the Petition meritorious. law."57

The Court Of Appeals Can Reverse And Notably, this Court has had numerous
Modify The Findings Of Fact Of The NLRC occasions when it found that the NLRC had
Only If Grave Abuse Of Discretion Exists. committed grave abuse of discretion and
allowed the modification and reversed of its
Preliminarily, it must be stressed that factual findings, such as when there is an
findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies arbitrary disregard of the evidence on
such as those of the NLRC must be accorded record, or when the labor tribunals have
great respect and even finality when misappreciated the evidence to such an
supported by substantial evidence.55 Still, extent as to compel a contrary conclusion if
the CA is granted limited jurisdiction under such evidence had been properly
Rule 65 to review, reverse, and modify the appreciated.58
factual findings of the labor tribunals when
grave abuse of discretion exists:

Clearly, therefore, before the CA may

reverse and modify the factual findings of
We have ruled in a litany of cases that resort the labor tribunals, there must be a clear
to judicial review of the decisions of the showing of grave abuse of discretion on the
NLRC under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court part of the NLRC. Otherwise stated, the
CA's inquiry in petitions for certiorari under substantial evidence, in that order." Thus, in
Rule 65 must be limited to whether the the hierarchy of evidence, it is the least
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion demanding. "Corollarily, the ground for the
in arriving at its factual findings.59 dismissal of an employee does not require
proof beyond reasonable doubt." The
quantum of proof required is merely
substantial evidence — which only entails
Applying the foregoing in the present case, evidence to support a conclusion, "even if
We fail to see any grave abuse of discretion other minds, equally reasonable, might
on the part of the NLRC to justify the CA's conceivably opine otherwise."61 (Emphasis
modification and reversal of the NLRC's supplied, citations omitted)
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. 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
The Quantum of Proof Required In Illegal certainty of guilt on the part of the
Dismissal Cases Is Merely Substantial employee.
Evidence.

As correctly pointed out by PLDT, the

quantum of proof required in illegal In the present case, the cause of Domingo's
dismissal cases is substantial evidence.60 dismissal is serious misconduct. Relevantly,
This Court has already clarified that in Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc.,62
substantial evidence is only such evidence as this Court has explained what the Labor
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate Code contemplates as serious misconduct:
to support a conclusion:

Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct; it

In this regard, it is a well-established rule is the transgression of some established and
that the party-litigant who alleges the definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
existence of a fact or thing necessary to dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
establish his/her claim has the burden of implies wrongful intent and not mere error
proving the same by the amount of evidence in judgment. The misconduct, to be serious
required by law, which, in labor within the meaning of the Labor Code must
proceedings, is substantial evidence, or be of such a grave and aggravated character
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable and not merely trivial or unimportant. Thus,
mind might accept as adequate to support a for misconduct or improper behavior to be a
conclusion." To be clear, in the hierarchy of just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be
evidentiary values, "proof beyond serious; (b) it must relate to the performance
reasonable doubt is placed at the highest of the employee's duties; and (c) it must
level , followed by clear and convincing show that the employee has become unfit to
evidence, preponderance of evidence, and
continue working for the employer.63 he failed to make a satisfactory explanation
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) of his involvement in the anomalous
requisitions, he is guilty of falsification.

This means that in justifying Domingo's

dismissal, PLDT had the burden to prove, As aptly held on the matter by the Supreme
with substantial evidence, that the acts of Court, in the case of Alarcon vs. Court of
Domingo: (1) were of a serious nature; (2) Appeals, No. L-21846, March 31, 1967 "(I)n
related to his duties as a Storekeeper of the the absence of satisfactory explanation, a
DSIM Tambo Warehouse; and (3) has made person who is found in possession of a
him unfit to continue working for PLDT. 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 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 In stark contrast to the overwhelming
misconduct, and as such, the dismissal of evidence presented by PLDT, Domingo
Domingo was justified. merely presented bare denials. He
mentioned that he was merely following
instructions, and that he could not have
known about the proper procurement
To recall, PLDT presented numerous procedures because Domingo supposedly
witnesses, documentary evidence, and a never received formal training for his
complete Investigation Report which position as a Storekeeper.
concluded that Domingo was indeed
involved in a fraudulent scheme in using
forged PLD forms to requisition outside
plant materials, which, when audited, were We are unconvinced with Domingo's bare
found to be unaccounted for. The records denials and self-serving evidence. While it
likewise bear that Domingo undisputedly may be true that he did not receive any
used and presented the forged PLD forms. training for his position as Storekeeper, it
Such possession and use of the said forged must be recalled that he was assigned to that
PLD forms already gives rise to the position as early as May 2001, and any and
presumption that Domingo was involved in all anomalies only commenced in 2002. This
the fraudulent scheme against PLDT. As means that for at least six months, he learned
succinctly ruled by the NLRC: and properly followed PLDT's procurement
procedure. Furthermore, as the Storekeeper
beginning May 2001, he was personally
aware that the DSIM Tambo Warehouse
We hold that since Complainant-Appellant only had a total of three PLD 140 form
was found in possession of forged PLD 158s transactions and 277 PLD 158 form
which he used, as substantially evidenced by transactions in 2001. Clearly, it is
the foregoing pieces of evidence, and since 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 In sum, We find that the CA erred when it
sharp increase in 2002. Thus, he cannot disturbed the factual findings of the NLRC
feign ignorance and pretend to have only as PLDT sufficiently established with
been following instructions when, as substantial evidence Domingo's valid cause
Storekeeper, he was personally involved in for termination.
all of the said transactions.

Domingo Was Not Denied Due Process Of

Given the foregoing, this Court finds that Law.
PLDT was able to prove, with substantial
evidence, that Domingo's termination based
on serious misconduct is valid, considering
that: Contrary to the ruling of the CA, We find
that Domingo was not denied due process of
law.

First, the act of knowingly using the forged

PLD forms to requisition materials is of a
serious matter that cost PLDT In a plethora of cases, this Court has already
P17,115,796.34 in material losses. elucidated the requirements to observe
procedural due process in termination cases.
In Distribution & Control Products,
Inc./Tiamsic v. Santos,65 it has been
Second, the offense committed by Domingo explained that two written notices are
relates to his functions as the Storekeeper of required to be furnished to the employee
the DSIM Tambo Warehouse. As before his or her termination of employment.
Storekeeper, his functions required the full In the same case, it has likewise been ruled
trust and confidence of PLDT since he was that a formal hearing is not necessary so
in charge with the custody of materials and long as the employee was granted an
equipment. Evidently, as a Storekeeper, opportunity to be heard:
Domingo was able to utilize his knowledge
and access to PLDT's materials when he
engaged in the fraudulent transactions.
[T]he settled rule is that in termination
proceedings of employees, procedural due
process consists of the twin requirements of
Third, because of Domingo's acts, he is no notice and hearing. The employer must
longer fit to continue his employment with furnish the employee with two written
PLDT, considering the latter's loss of trust notices before the termination of
and confidence in Domingo, and the employment can be effected: (1) the first
monetary losses PLDT endured because of apprises the employee of the particular acts
the fraudulent scheme. or omissions for which his dismissal is
sought; and (2) the second informs the
employee of the employer's decision to With the foregoing, it is clear that all the
dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is requisites of procedural due process were
complied with as long as there was an complied with. Nevertheless, while this
opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily Court is satisfied that procedural due process
that an actual hearing was conducted.66 was observed in the present case, We deem
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) it best to resolve the other arguments that
Domingo raised to supposedly show that he
was deprived of his right to due process.

Here, Domingo was furnished two written

notices before his employment was
terminated: (1) the Request for Explanation; The Offense Committed Has Not Yet Been
and (2) the Notice of Termination. Condoned.

In his submissions, Domingo insists that his

offense has supposedly already been
As recited above, in the Request for condoned pursuant to the provision in the
Explanation, PLDT outlined the particular CBA, considering that the Notice to Explain
acts which were the subject of the serious was only issued to him three years after the
misconduct charge against Domingo. The supposed discovery of the offense. On this
Request for Explanation likewise asked note, we cannot fault PLDT for the delay in
Domingo to respond and explain his side the issuance of the Request for Explanation
within 72 hours from his receipt of the same. precisely because Domingo was also at fault
Finally, the Request for Explanation when he intentionally failed to cooperate in
informed Domingo that a hearing may be the investigation being conducted by PLDT.
had if he so desires.

As discussed above, PLDT issued three

Domingo did respond to the Request for invitations – the First, Second, and Third
Explanation by submitting a three-page Invitations – asking Domingo to appear in a
letter where he unsatisfactorily explained his formal inquiry. During the scheduled formal
defense. Notably, nowhere in his response inquiries, Domingo could have already
did he request that a formal hearing be explained his side and presented his defense,
conducted. 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
Upon review of all the evidence on record, Third Invitations, Domingo refused to
as well as Domingo's response, PLDT issued acknowledge receipt of the same, which
the Notice of Termination where Domingo resulted in further delays in the
was informed that he was being dismissed investigation. It must be stressed that We
from service. 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 Article 277(b) of the Labor Code provides
separate occasions. Thusly, PLDT's that, in cases of termination for a just cause,
narrative that Domingo refused to receive an employee must be given "ample
the same holds more water. 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
We likewise echo the view of the NLRC that "considerably more than adequate or
these invitations were already akin to the sufficient." In this regard, the phrase "ample
"show cause" memorandum required under opportunity to be heard" can be reasonably
the CBA, considering that the same already interpreted as extensive enough to cover
informed Domingo that a formal inquiry will actual hearing or conference. To this extent,
be conducted whereby he will be asked Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing
about his involvement in the fraudulent use Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code is in
of the forged PLD forms. Prescinding from conformity with Article 277(b).
this discussion, it is clear that the offense
committed by Domingo cannot be
considered to have been already condoned.
Nonetheless, Section 2(d), Rule I of the
Implementing Rules of Book VI of the
Labor Code should not be taken to mean that
A Formal Hearing Is Not Required In Illegal holding an actual hearing or conference is a
Dismissal Cases. condition sine qua non for compliance with
the due process requirement in termination
In Domingo's submissions, he also argues of employment. The test for the fair
that a formal hearing is required to ensure procedure guaranteed under Article 277(b)
that procedural due process is observed. He cannot be whether there has been a formal
likewise contends that since a formal pretermination confrontation between the
hearing was not conducted, he was deprived employer and the employee. The "ample
of the opportunity to cross-examine PLDT's opportunity to be heard" standard is neither
witnesses, and make an intelligent defense. 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
These arguments are devoid of merit. 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
As stated above, jurisprudence is clear that a inflexible procedures universally applicable
formal hearing is not necessary as long as to every imaginable situation."
the employee is given an ample opportunity
to be heard. Our ruling in Perez v. Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company,67 is
instructive: xxxx
 To clarify, in Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Agad,
We did not categorically declare that the
Significantly, Section 2(d), Rule I of the right to cross-examine witnesses in illegal
Implementing Rules of Book VI of the dismissal cases is indispensabie in order to
Labor Code itself provides that the so-called satisfy the requirements of due process. At
standards of due process outlined therein best, such statement was mere obiter dictum
shall be observed "substantially", not since it did not pertain to the key issue in the
strictly. This is a recognition that while a said case. In this regard, the settled doctrine
formal hearing or conference is ideal, it is that the technical rules of evidence are not
not an absolute, mandatory or exclusive strictly applied in labor cases70 still stands.
avenue of due process.68 (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)

In fact, this Court has already had the

occasion of applying this well-settled
In the present case, Domingo cannot validly doctrine vis-a-vis the right to cross-examine
aver that his right to due process was witnesses in labor cases:
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 [J]urisprudence is replete with rulings that
Request for Explanation, expressly gave administrative bodies are not bound by the
Domingo the opportunity to request for a technical niceties of law and procedure and
formal hearing, which Domingo failed to do. the rules obtaining in the courts of law.
Hence, Domingo cannot be allowed to Hence, whatever merit C.F. Sharp’s
blame PLDT when he himself is at fault. 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
The Right To Cross-Examine Is Not labor cases.
Indispensable Since The Technical Rules Of
Evidence Need Not Be Strictly Applied In
Labor Cases.
The claim of denial of due process on the
Notably, in his submissions before this part of C.F. Sharp must also be rejected. The
Court, Domingo likewise argued that he was essence of due process lies in the reasonable
denied due process because he was unable to opportunity afforded a party to be heard and
cross-examine PLDT's witnesses. In support to submit any evidence in support of its
of his argument, Domingo cited the case of defense. What is vital is not the opportunity
Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Agad,69 where this to cross-examine an adverse witness, but an
Court considered as hearsay evidence the opportunity to be heard.71 (Emphasis
testimonies of the witnesses therein since no supplied, citations omitted)
cross-examination was held.
Further, in the recent case of Smart witnesses be cross-examined by counsel for
Communications, Inc. v. Solidum,72 this the adverse party.
Court explicitly stated that cross-
examination is not necessary in labor cases:

The Court explained the reason why cross-

examination is not required in the
It is not necessary that witnesses be cross- proceedings before the labor arbiter in
examined by counsel of the adverse party in Reyno v. Manila Electric Company, citing
proceedings before the labor arbiter Rabago v. National Labor Relations
Commission where the Court ruled:

Solidum further alleges that he was denied

the right to cross-examine the witnesses who x x x. The argument that the affidavit is
submitted affidavits in favor of Smart; thus, hearsay because the affiants were not
the affidavits must be considered hearsay presented for cross-examination is not
and inadmissible. In support of such persuasive because the rules of evidence are
contention, Solidum cites Naguit v. National not strictly observed in proceedings before
Labor Relations Commission. administrative bodies like the NLRC where
decisions may be reached on the basis of
position papers only. x x x.

Such contention is misplaced.

Clearly, the alleged denial of Solidum's

request to cross-examine the witnesses of
The controlling jurisprudence on the matter Smart does not render their affidavits
is the ruling in the more recent Philippine hearsay. Thus, these pieces of evidence were
Long Distance Telephone Company v. properly considered by the labor tribunal.73
Honrado, where the Court ruled: (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

It is hornbook in employee dismissal cases Given the foregoing, it is apparent that

that "[t]he essence of due process is an Domingo's argument is devoid of merit,
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to considering that he was granted an ample
administrative proceedings, an opportunity opportunity to be heard, even though he was
to explain one's side x x x. A formal or trial unable to cross-examine PLDT's witnesses.
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 On another note, the rule that the technical
opportunity to explain their side of the rules of evidence may be relaxed in labor
controversy." Neither is it necessary that the cases is similarly applicable in resolving
Domingo's claim that the evidence attached
to PLDT's affidavits are mere photocopies, Agabon vs National Labor Relations
and thus, should not be given credence. Commission

GR No. 158693 November 17, 2004

Considering that rules of evidence need not

be strictly applied in labor cases, We hold
that the NLRC did not err when it gave Facts: Private respondent Riviera Home
evidentiary weight to the affidavits Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the
presented by PLDT, notwithstanding the fact business of selling and installing ornamental
that the attachments therein are mere and construction materials. It employed
photocopies. petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny
Agabon as gypsum board and cornice
installers on January 2, 1992 until February
23, 1999 when they were dismissed for
All said, this Court grants the instant abandonment of work. Petitioners then filed
Petition. We find that the NLRC did not a complaint for illegal dismissal and
commit grave abuse of discretion when it payment of money claims and on December
affirmed the factual findings of the LA that 28, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
Domingo's dismissal is valid. The decision declaring the dismissals illegal and
termination not being illegal, We likewise ordered private respondent to pay the
overturn the CA's grant of reinstatement, monetary claims. It was found out from the
backwages, and attorney's fees. investigations that the abandonment from
work by the petitioners was because they
subcontracted with another company to
which they have been remanded before
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the when they committed the same initially.
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari The petitioners alleged that due process has
dated August 12, 2011 filed by Philippine not been observed.
Long Distance Telephone Company is
GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, Issues: Whether or not petitioners dismissal
2011 and the Resolution dated June 22, 2011 are illegal.
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
107672 are hereby REVERSED and SET Whether or not they are entitled to pay.
ASIDE, and the Resolution dated June 27,
2007 of the National Labor Relations Held: No. To dismiss an employee, the law
Commission is REINSTATED. requires not only the existence of a just and
valid cause but also enjoins the employer to
give the employee the opportunity to be
heard and to defend himself. Article 282 of
SO ORDERED. the Labor Code enumerates the just causes
for termination by the employer:
3. Agbon v. NLRC, GR No. 158693, 17
November 2004 (a) serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or the latters
representative in connection with the specifying the grounds for which dismissal
employees work; is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be
heard and after hearing or opportunity to be
(b) gross and habitual neglect by the heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss;
employee of his duties; and (2) if the dismissal is based on
authorized causes under Articles 283 and
(c) fraud or willful breach by the employee 284, the employer must give the employee
of the trust reposed in him by his employer and the Department of Labor and
or his duly authorized representative; Employment written notices 30 days prior to
the effectivity of his separation.
(d) commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his employer The dismissal should be upheld. While the
or any immediate member of his family or procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it
his duly authorized representative; and should not invalidate the dismissal.
However, the employer should be held liable
(e) other causes analogous to the for non-compliance with the procedural
foregoing.Abandonment is the deliberate requirements of due process.
and unjustified refusal of an employee to
resume his employment. It is a form of Yes. The rule thus evolved: where the
neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for employer had a valid reason to dismiss an
termination of employment by the employer. employee but did not follow the due process
For a valid finding of abandonment, these requirement, the dismissal may be upheld
two factors should be present: but the employer will be penalized to pay an
indemnity to the employee. This became
(1) the failure to report for work or absence known as the Wenphil or Belated Due
without valid or justifiable reason; and Process Rule.

(2) a clear intention to sever employer-

employee relationship, with the second as
the more determinative factor which is An employer is liable to pay indemnity in
manifested by overt acts from which it may the form of nominal damages to an
be deduced that the employees has no more employee who has been dismissed if, in
intention to work. effecting such dismissal, the employer fails
to comply with the requirements of due
process.

The intent to discontinue the employment The violation of the petitioners right to
must be shown by clear proof that it was statutory due process by the private
deliberate and unjustified. respondent warrants the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal damages.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on The amount of such damages is addressed to
a just cause under Article 282, the employer the sound discretion of the court, taking into
must give the employee two written notices account the relevant circumstances.
and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if Considering the prevailing circumstances in
requested by the employee before the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at
terminating the employment: a notice P30,000.00. We believe this form of
damages would serve to deter employers Regulatory Affairs Manager,
from future violations of the statutory due indicating therein the job description
process rights of employees. At the very for as well as the duties and
least, it provides a vindication or recognition responsibilities attendant to the
of this fundamental right granted to the latter aforesaid position. Alcaraz signed an
under the Labor Code and its Implementing employment contract which
Rules. specifically stated, inter alia, that she
was to be placed on probation for a
ii. Contractual Due Process period of six (6) months beginning
February 15, 2005 to August 14,
Labor Law 2005. On the day Alcaraz accepted
Abbott’s employment offer,
CONTRACTUAL Due Process Bernardo sent her copies of Abbott’s
organizational structure and her job
Pinagbayad pa rin ng Korte ang employer ng description through e-mail. She also
halagang P30,000 NOMINAL Damage nang had undergone a pre-employment
tanggalin nito ang isang probationary orientation and training program as
managerial employee sa kabila ng part of her orientation. In May ,
pagkakaroon ng sapat na batayan at Alcaraz was informed and asked to
pagsunod sa Statutory due process tender her resignation or they be
requirement na Notice and Hearing bago ang forced to terminate her services
pagtatanggal.. because she failed to meet the
regularization standards. She then
Ang Dahilan ay: filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and damages against Abbott and its
Ang HINDI pag sunod ng employer sa officers.
CONTRACTUAL due process o
pinagkasunduang proseso sa pagtatanggal na She claimed that she should have
nakasaad sa Company Policy nito. [Abbot already been considered as a regular
Laboratories, Phil. vs Perlie Ann F. Alcaraz, and not a probationary employee
2013.] given Abbott’s failure to inform her
of the reasonable standards for her
Kaya, upang maiwasang pagbayarin ng regularization upon her engagement
P30,000 Nominal Damage, katulad nito, as required under Article 295 of the
siguraduhing nasunod pareho ang (1) Labor Code. The LA dismissed
Statutory due process na Notice and Hearing Alcaraz’s complaint for lack of merit
na nasa Labor Code AT ang (2) Contractual because she was unable to meet the
due process na nakasaad sa Company Rules, standards set by Abbott as per her
kung mayroon. performance evaluation, the
termination of her probationary
1. Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz, GR employment was justified. The
No. 192571, 23 July 2013 NLRC reversed the findings of the
LA and ruled that there was no
FACTS: Abbott caused the evidence showing that Alcaraz had
publication in a major broadsheet been apprised of her probationary
newspaper of its need for a status and the requirements which
she should have complied with in Labor Code termination
order to be a regular employee. The procedure, it is readily apparent
CA affirmed the ruling of the that Abbott breached its
NLRC . contractual obligation to Alcaraz
when it failed to abide by its own
Issues: procedure in evaluating the
performance of a probationary
1. whether or not Alcaraz was employee thus, warrants for the
sufficiently informed of the payment of nominal damages.
reasonable standards to qualify her as
a regular employee; A company policy partakes of the
nature of an implied contract
2. whether or not Alcaraz was validly between the employer and
terminated from her employment; employee. Hence, given such
nature, company personnel
HELD: policies create an obligation on
the part of both the employee and
1. YES. Alcaraz was well-aware the employer to abide by the
that her regularization would same. Records show that
depend on her ability and Abbott’s PPSE procedure
capacity to fulfill the mandates, inter alia, that the job
requirements of her position as performance of a probationary
Regulatory Affairs Manager and employee should be formally
that her failure to perform such reviewed and discussed with the
would give Abbott a valid cause employee at least twice; Abbott
to terminate her probationary is also required to come up with a
employment. A probationary Performance Improvement Plan
employee, like a regular during the third month review to
employee, enjoys security of bridge the gap between the
tenure. However, in cases of employee’s performance and the
probationary employment, aside standards set, if any. In addition,
from just or authorized causes of a signed copy of the PPSE form
termination, an additional ground should be submitted to Abbott’s
is provided under Article 295 of HRD as the same would serve as
the Labor Code, i.e., the basis for recommending the
probationary employee may also confirmation or termination of
be terminated for failure to the probationary employment.
qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with the reasonable Abbott failed to follow the
standards made known by the above-stated procedure in
employer to the employee at the evaluating Alcaraz. Case law has
time of the engagement. (b) YES. settled that an employer who
Despite the existence of a terminates an employee for a
sufficient ground to terminate valid cause but does so through
Alcaraz’s employment and invalid procedure is liable to pay
Abbott’s compliance with the the latter nominal damages. The
contract is the law between the
parties and thus, breaches of the
same impel recompense to
vindicate a right that has been
violated. Consequently, while the
Court is wont to uphold the
dismissal of Alcaraz because a
valid cause exists, the payment of
nominal damages on account of
Abbott’s contractual breach is
warranted in accordance with
Article 2221 of the Civil Code.