July 1989 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > July 1989 Decisions >
G.R. No. 71499 July 19, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 71499. July 19, 1989.]
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & JAIME L. ALEJANDRINO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
The petitioner, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (or PLDT), seeks a review of the NLRC’s decision ordering it to reinstate without backwages its employee, Jaime Alejandrino, a telephone installer, who was caught siphoning gasoline from his PLDT service vehicle, and was dismissed as a consequence thereof.
On November 17, 1982, at a little past noon, Alejandrino was apprehended by two (2) Quezon City policemen in the act of siphoning gasoline into a plastic container, from the gas tank of a PLDT service vehicle No. 1647, a Ford Fiera bearing Plate No. NBL-729-Pil ‘82, near his house on Leyland Drive, Baesa, Quezon City.
During the investigation at the police station, he admitted that he had been stealing gasoline from his employer’s vehicle. A charge of qualified theft was filed by the police in the fiscal’s office (I.S. No. 82-26727). As recommended by the fiscal in his Disposition Report, an information for qualified theft was filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch XI at Quezon City (Crim. Case No. 214328) and a bail of P8,000 was fixed for the provisional liberty of the accused.
Upon being apprised of the incident, the PLDT asked Alejandrino to explain in writing why he should not be dismissed from the service for "theft or misappropriation of company property." (p. 31, Rollo.)
In his explanation, Alejandrino denied having committed the theft. He alleged that he was framed up by a certain Cris Torres who may have suspected Alejandrino of having a dalliance with his wife; that the policemen may have been Torres’ friends; and that the evidences against him (the siphon and plastic container with gasoline) were planted. He concluded his explanation with a statement that "I am ready to be heard if you consider that there are certain matters to be clarified from me in a formal inquiry by an officer" (p. 33, Rollo).
On April 14, 1983, he was discharged by the company on the basis of his earlier sworn admission, the affidavits of the arresting officers, and the disposition report of the inquest fiscal.
Alejandrino filed a complaint in the NLRC for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter "after a careful study of the records and the testimonies of the witnesses (policemen)," held that "there was justifiable ground to warrant the dismissal of complainant" (p. 16, Rollo). He dismissed the complaint for lack of merit (p. 18, Rollo).
However, on appeal by Alejandrino, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that Alejandrino was dismissed without a proper hearing or without due process. It ordered PLDT to reinstate him "to his former position without loss of seniority rights but without backwages." (p. 38, Rollo.).
The company filed this petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that Alejandrino was dismissed without due process.
We find merit in the petition.
"Due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations require the trial-type proceeding" (Zaldivar v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 80578, Oct. 7, 1988). The requirements of due process were satisfied when Alejandrino was notified of the charge of dishonesty against him and he was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself, which he did in writing to his District Manager, E. A. Toledo (pp. 31-33, Rollo) (Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. Amores, 152 SCRA 237). The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard (Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764), or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, 110 SCRA 438; Gas Corporation of the Phils. v. Hon. Inciong, 93 SCRA 653; Cebu Institute of Technology v. Minister of Labor, 113 SCRA 257), or, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (Dormitorio v. Fernandez, 72 SCRA 388). Alejandrino did not ask for a formal hearing. He merely expressed his readiness to face one "if . . . there are certain matters to be clarified from me." (p . 33, Rollo.) The company may not be taken to task for not holding a formal inquiry since it found no further need for clarification of the evidence in its possession.
There was ample evidence that Alejandrino committed the theft charged. The Labor Arbiter found that the policemen "detailedly explained what actually transpired — from the time they received the tip up to the time complainant was brought to the Police Headquarters for investigation. The Labor Arbiter had "no cause . . . to doubt the testimonies of the witnesses who testified candidly and openly. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties must be upheld in the absence of a showing to the contrary." (pp. 17-18, Rollo.)
The Labor Arbiter rejected Alejandrino’s allegation that he was "made to sign his sworn statement without giving him the opportunity to read the same under threat and intimidation" (p. 16, Rollo). The Labor Arbiter observed that in Alejandrino’s answer to Question No. 4, where he admitted that he siphoned the gasoline from the Ford Fiera, Alejandrino added in his own handwriting an explanation: "Dahil inabonohan ko ang nakuhang P30.00 dahil malapit ng maubusan" (p. 17, Rollo). The implication of that statement is that he was merely trying to get back the P30 worth of gasoline which he allegedly purchased with his own money (inabonohan ko). On the other hand, if indeed he advanced P30 to put gasoline in the Fiera, why would he siphon it out instead of securing a refund of the amount which he advanced?
The fact that the policemen may have conducted their surveillance of Alejandrino upon a tip from a jealous husband (Cris Torres) is not an exempting or exculpatory circumstance. He admitted that he committed the theft more than once. Under the circumstances, considering the seriousness of his misconduct, it would not be proper to require his employer to take him back (PLDT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75927, Oct. 5, 1988; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Phil. v. Lariosa, 148 SCRA 187). Acts of dishonesty in the use of company property are a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The decision of the NLRC is set aside and that of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
On November 17, 1982, at a little past noon, Alejandrino was apprehended by two (2) Quezon City policemen in the act of siphoning gasoline into a plastic container, from the gas tank of a PLDT service vehicle No. 1647, a Ford Fiera bearing Plate No. NBL-729-Pil ‘82, near his house on Leyland Drive, Baesa, Quezon City.
During the investigation at the police station, he admitted that he had been stealing gasoline from his employer’s vehicle. A charge of qualified theft was filed by the police in the fiscal’s office (I.S. No. 82-26727). As recommended by the fiscal in his Disposition Report, an information for qualified theft was filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch XI at Quezon City (Crim. Case No. 214328) and a bail of P8,000 was fixed for the provisional liberty of the accused.
Upon being apprised of the incident, the PLDT asked Alejandrino to explain in writing why he should not be dismissed from the service for "theft or misappropriation of company property." (p. 31, Rollo.)
In his explanation, Alejandrino denied having committed the theft. He alleged that he was framed up by a certain Cris Torres who may have suspected Alejandrino of having a dalliance with his wife; that the policemen may have been Torres’ friends; and that the evidences against him (the siphon and plastic container with gasoline) were planted. He concluded his explanation with a statement that "I am ready to be heard if you consider that there are certain matters to be clarified from me in a formal inquiry by an officer" (p. 33, Rollo).
On April 14, 1983, he was discharged by the company on the basis of his earlier sworn admission, the affidavits of the arresting officers, and the disposition report of the inquest fiscal.
Alejandrino filed a complaint in the NLRC for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter "after a careful study of the records and the testimonies of the witnesses (policemen)," held that "there was justifiable ground to warrant the dismissal of complainant" (p. 16, Rollo). He dismissed the complaint for lack of merit (p. 18, Rollo).
However, on appeal by Alejandrino, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that Alejandrino was dismissed without a proper hearing or without due process. It ordered PLDT to reinstate him "to his former position without loss of seniority rights but without backwages." (p. 38, Rollo.).
The company filed this petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that Alejandrino was dismissed without due process.
We find merit in the petition.
"Due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations require the trial-type proceeding" (Zaldivar v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 80578, Oct. 7, 1988). The requirements of due process were satisfied when Alejandrino was notified of the charge of dishonesty against him and he was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself, which he did in writing to his District Manager, E. A. Toledo (pp. 31-33, Rollo) (Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. Amores, 152 SCRA 237). The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard (Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764), or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, 110 SCRA 438; Gas Corporation of the Phils. v. Hon. Inciong, 93 SCRA 653; Cebu Institute of Technology v. Minister of Labor, 113 SCRA 257), or, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (Dormitorio v. Fernandez, 72 SCRA 388). Alejandrino did not ask for a formal hearing. He merely expressed his readiness to face one "if . . . there are certain matters to be clarified from me." (p . 33, Rollo.) The company may not be taken to task for not holding a formal inquiry since it found no further need for clarification of the evidence in its possession.
There was ample evidence that Alejandrino committed the theft charged. The Labor Arbiter found that the policemen "detailedly explained what actually transpired — from the time they received the tip up to the time complainant was brought to the Police Headquarters for investigation. The Labor Arbiter had "no cause . . . to doubt the testimonies of the witnesses who testified candidly and openly. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties must be upheld in the absence of a showing to the contrary." (pp. 17-18, Rollo.)
The Labor Arbiter rejected Alejandrino’s allegation that he was "made to sign his sworn statement without giving him the opportunity to read the same under threat and intimidation" (p. 16, Rollo). The Labor Arbiter observed that in Alejandrino’s answer to Question No. 4, where he admitted that he siphoned the gasoline from the Ford Fiera, Alejandrino added in his own handwriting an explanation: "Dahil inabonohan ko ang nakuhang P30.00 dahil malapit ng maubusan" (p. 17, Rollo). The implication of that statement is that he was merely trying to get back the P30 worth of gasoline which he allegedly purchased with his own money (inabonohan ko). On the other hand, if indeed he advanced P30 to put gasoline in the Fiera, why would he siphon it out instead of securing a refund of the amount which he advanced?
The fact that the policemen may have conducted their surveillance of Alejandrino upon a tip from a jealous husband (Cris Torres) is not an exempting or exculpatory circumstance. He admitted that he committed the theft more than once. Under the circumstances, considering the seriousness of his misconduct, it would not be proper to require his employer to take him back (PLDT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75927, Oct. 5, 1988; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Phil. v. Lariosa, 148 SCRA 187). Acts of dishonesty in the use of company property are a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The decision of the NLRC is set aside and that of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
