G.R. No. 106947 February 11, 1999.
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND ENRIQUE GABRIEL, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Enrique Gabriel was employed as a foreman by petitioner PLDT. On September 5, 1989, he ordered installer Medel Mercado to set up two telephone units at a building in Mandaluyong for a subscriber, Mr. Marlon Aquino. On October 16, 1989, he again ordered installer Juancho Jocson to set up two additional units for the same subscriber. These installation activities were later investigated because: (a) the building had no entrance cable facilities for telephone connection; (b) Mandaluyong was not within Gabriel’s area of jurisdiction; and (c) the installers were not under his direct supervision. In the administrative investigation, Gabriel explained his sole intention was to provide customer satisfaction. On September 3, 1990, PLDT dismissed Gabriel on grounds of grave misconduct, breach of trust, and violations of company rules. Gabriel filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal justified, noting Gabriel’s actions were irregular, involved misrepresentation, exceeded his authority, and placed the installers’ employment at risk. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering Gabriel’s reinstatement with full backwages, benefits, and proportionate privileges, finding that his actions did not constitute serious misconduct and that the telephones could only be installed after PLDT’s approval documents were issued. PLDT’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

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.

RULING

The Supreme Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that while Gabriel’s actions may not have constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal, they were a clear violation of company rules and procedures. His acts of ordering installations outside his jurisdiction, involving personnel not under his supervision, and engaging in misrepresentation demonstrated a willful disregard of standard operating procedures, justifying disciplinary action. However, considering his length of service (19 years) with no prior infractions, the absence of proof that he profited from the acts or that PLDT suffered losses, and the principle that dismissal is the ultimate penalty where a less severe penalty would suffice, the Court ruled that dismissal was too harsh a penalty. The Court modified the NLRC resolution. Petitioner PLDT was directed to reinstate Gabriel to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him full backwages, including 13th-month pay, computed from the date of the NLRC Resolution (June 29, 1992) until his actual reinstatement. The awards of unspecified “benefits and proportionate privileges” were set aside.