totao

FELIX B. PEREZ and AMANTE G. DORIA, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY and JOSE LUIS SANTIAGO, Respondents.
EN BANC
G.R. No. 152048 April 7, 2009

FACTS: Petitioners were employed by respondent as shipping clerk and supervisor, respectively in PT&T’s Shipping Section, Materials Management group. On Sept. 3, 1993, petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30 days for their alleged involvement in the anomaly. Their suspensions were extended 15 days twice: first on Oct, 3, 1993 and second on Oct. 18, 1993. On Oct. 29, 1993, a memorandum with the following tenor was issued by respondents. Labor arbiter found that the 30 day extension of petitioners’ suspension and their subsequent dismissal were both illegal, ordering respondent to pay petiti

oner their salaries during 30 day illegal suspension as well as to reinstate them with backwages and 13 month pay. The National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) reversed the decision of the labor arbiter. It ruled that petitioners were dismissed for just cause and that they were accorded due process and their illegally suspended for only 15 days. In its January 29, 2002 decision, the CA affirmed the NLRC decision insofar as petitioners’ illegal suspension for 15 days and dismissal for just cause were concerned. However, it found that petitioners were dismissed without due process. Petitioners now seek for the reversal of the CA decision. They contended that there was no just cause for their dismissal that they were not accorded due process and they were illegally suspended for 30 days.

Issues: Whether or not there was sufficient basis for respondents to lose their confidence in petitioners for allegedly tampering with the shipping documents.
Whether or not the petitioners’ dismissal was no just cause and were not accorded due process and that they were illegally suspended for 30 days.

Rulings: Without undermining the importance of a shipping or order request, we find respondents’ evidence insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish the facts from which the loss of confidence resulted. It was never proven that petitioners alone had control of or access to these documents. Thus, we uphold the ruling of the labor arbiter on this point. Respondents’ illegal act of dismissing petitioners was aggravated by their failure to observe due process, notice and hearing. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of court of appeals dated January 29, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 50536 finding that petitioners Felix B. Perez and Amante G. Doria were not illegally dismissed but were not accorded due process and were illegally suspended for 15 days, is SET ASIDE. The decision of the labor arbiter dated December 27, 1995 in NLRC NCR CN. 11-06930-93 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioners should be paid their separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.