GR 143688; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143688 ; August 17, 2007
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. BELINDA D. BUNA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Belinda D. Buna was a PLDT Service Representative. In 1995, an investigation revealed an anomalous transfer of a telephone line. The line, originally under Olivia L. Eduarte and disconnected since 1984, was reactivated and transferred to Engr. Danilo Castillano in 1993 based on a purported letter request from Eduarte, which she later denied signing. Castillano admitted purchasing the line’s “rights” for ₱40,000 from “Chito,” identified as Ramoncito Buna, respondent’s husband and a former PLDT employee. Respondent had processed and recommended approval of the transfer.
PLDT required respondent to explain her involvement. She submitted an affidavit allegedly from Castillano absolving her husband, but Castillano later disowned this affidavit. Consequently, PLDT terminated her employment for complicity in the irregular transaction. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upheld the dismissal as legal. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially dismissed it for being filed out of time but later granted it on reconsideration, annulling the NLRC decision and ordering reinstatement with back wages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in granting Buna’s petition for certiorari and setting aside the NLRC decision that had allegedly attained finality due to procedural lapses.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted PLDT’s petition and reversed the CA decision. The Court held that the CA no longer had jurisdiction over Buna’s petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. An appeal from an NLRC decision to the CA via a petition for certiorari must be filed within the 60-day reglementary period. The records showed Buna filed her petition beyond this period. The CA’s initial dismissal for being time-barred was correct; its subsequent grant of the petition on reconsideration was a jurisdictional error. Procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential for orderly justice administration, and their relaxation requires a compelling reason not present here.
On the substantive merits, which the Court examined to resolve the controversy finally, it found Buna’s dismissal valid. As the employee who processed the transfer, she failed to exercise due diligence. She relied on an unverified letter request, facilitating the transfer of a long-disconnected line obtained through a suspicious cash payment to her husband. Her act constituted gross neglect of duty and breach of trust, providing just cause for termination under the Labor Code. The NLRC decision was reinstated.