Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Enrique Gabriel, a foreman for petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), was dismissed on September 3, 1990, for grave misconduct, breach of trust, and violations of company rules and regulations. This stemmed from his ordering the installation of two telephone units on September 5, 1989, and two additional units on October 16, 1989, for a subscriber named Marlon Aquino. The installations were investigated because the building lacked necessary cable facilities, Mandaluyong was outside Gabriel's jurisdiction, and the installers were not under his direct supervision. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed Gabriel's complaint for illegal dismissal, finding his actions irregular, involving misrepresentation to secure "OK numbers" and perform "call back" procedures, and exceeding his authority by acting in Mandaluyong. The Labor Arbiter noted that Gabriel's actions placed the installers' employment in jeopardy and demonstrated a tendency to commit infractions. The Petition: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, ordering PLDT to reinstate Gabriel with full backwages, benefits, and proportionate privileges. The NLRC found that the charge did not qualify as serious misconduct, that there was no written rule specifying dismissal for such an offense, and that PLDT suffered no loss. PLDT's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for certiorari, assailing the NLRC's resolution for grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision and ordering the reinstatement of private respondent with full backwages and other benefits. Whether private respondent Enrique Gabriel is guilty of serious misconduct and/or breach of trust anent the irregular installation of the telephones; and the propriety of the award of backwages and benefits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC Resolution with modification. Petitioner PLDT was directed to reinstate private respondent Enrique Gabriel to his position held at the time of dismissal. PLDT was also ordered to pay Gabriel his full backwages, including thirteenth month pay, computed from June 29, 1992 (date of NLRC Resolution) until his actual reinstatement. The award of unspecified "benefits and proportionate privileges" by the NLRC was set aside for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. While Gabriel's actions were irregular, including ordering installations without proper facilities, exceeding his jurisdiction, and misrepresenting himself, the NLRC correctly considered mitigating factors. The Court noted that there was no written company rule explicitly stating that such an offense warranted dismissal, nor was there proof of monetary gain for Gabriel or loss for PLDT. Furthermore, the subject telephones were installed after PLDT's approval, indicating that the irregularity was in the procedure rather than the fundamental authorization. On the issue of whether Gabriel is guilty of serious misconduct and/or breach of trust and the award of backwages and benefits: The Court acknowledged that Gabriel's actions constituted a violation of company rules and procedures, and potentially a breach of trust. However, it emphasized that dismissal is the ultimate penalty and should not be imposed if a less punitive measure would suffice, especially considering the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The Court cited jurisprudence holding that even in cases of breach of trust, dismissal may be too severe for an employee with a considerable length of service and no prior derogatory record. In this case, Gabriel had facilitated the service connections irregularly, but he apparently did so with the mistaken impression of cultivating customer goodwill and received no monetary benefit. Therefore, while his actions could not be entirely disregarded, they did not justify the ultimate penalty of dismissal. The Court sustained the NLRC's award of full backwages and thirteenth month pay from June 29, 1992, until actual reinstatement, based on the finding that Gabriel's dismissal was of doubtful justification in law and policy. The Court distinguished this case from MERALCO vs. NLRC, where backwages were not awarded because the employer acted in good faith. Here, the irregularity was procedural, not per se illegal, and Gabriel's intent was to cultivate customer goodwill. However, the Court modified the NLRC's award of unspecified "benefits and proportionate privileges," deeming them unwarranted because Gabriel was not entirely faultless. As a supervisor, he jeopardized the status of rank-and-file employees and undermined company morale and discipline, thus he should not be further rewarded.
Main Doctrine
While an employee may be dismissed for serious misconduct or breach of trust, the penalty of dismissal must be proportionate to the offense, considering the employee's length of service and the circumstances of the case. Where doubt exists regarding the validity of termination, it must be resolved in favor of the employee. Reinstatement with backwages may be awarded even if the employee is not entirely faultless, provided the dismissal is found to be of doubtful justification.