Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Voluntary Arbitrator Montemayor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three employees of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) at its Davao Exchange, Ma. Emma J. Totesora and Miricar A. Marcos (regular Traffic Operators), and Ma. Lourdes U. Macabenta (probationary Traffic Operator), were dismissed. Totesora and Marcos were dismissed for allegedly placing free long distance calls. Macabenta's employment was terminated for failing to meet minimum requirements for regularization. Procedural History: The Union and PLDT agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator Alberto Montemayor found Totesora and Marcos to have violated company regulations but recommended transfer instead of outright dismissal, deeming dismissal too drastic for a first offense. Regarding Macabenta, the Arbitrator found the delay in her probationary period unusual and ordered her retention as an employee, though not necessarily as a traffic operator, believing justice and fair play required it. The Petition: PLDT filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Voluntary Arbitrator in ordering the reinstatement of Totesora and Marcos despite their acts inimical to the company's interest, and in considering Macabenta a regular employee and ordering her reinstatement to a position other than her former one.
Issue(s)
Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of respondents Totesora and Marcos. Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion in considering respondent Macabenta a regular employee and ordering her reinstatement. Whether the resolution of the Voluntary Arbitrator is subject to judicial review.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is GRANTED in part, setting aside the directive for the reinstatement of Totesora and Marcos. It is DENIED with respect to Macabenta's reinstatement. PLDT is ordered to reinstate Macabenta to her former or substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and to pay her backwages not exceeding three (3) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reinstatement of Totesora and Marcos: The Court held that the Voluntary Arbitrator gravely abused his discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Totesora and Marcos. Their conduct of passing free long distance calls constituted dishonesty and was inimical to the company's interest, rendering them unworthy of trust. Such acts go to the very heart of PLDT's business, which relies on long distance calls for revenue, and justified their dismissal. On the nature of Macabenta's employment and her reinstatement: The Court ruled that Macabenta was a regular employee. Having been employed for more than a year, she automatically became a regular employee regardless of her initial probationary status, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code. Her tasks as a traffic operator were also necessary and desirable to PLDT's business. The Court found Macabenta's dismissal unjustified and ordered her reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, along with backwages not exceeding three years. This was based on her status as a regular employee and the finding that her dismissal was not warranted. On the issue of judicial review: The Court affirmed that decisions of voluntary arbitrators, while respected, are subject to judicial review, particularly on issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Voluntary arbitrators act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and their interpretations of law are not beyond the Supreme Court's review, similar to administrative officials.
Main Doctrine
While decisions of voluntary arbitrators are accorded respect, they are subject to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion. Acts of dishonesty, especially those affecting the core business of the employer, constitute just cause for dismissal, and reinstatement may not be proper. However, an employee who has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of initial status, is considered a regular employee.