G.R. No. 197402, June 30, 2021
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. CECILIO Z. DOMINGO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo was employed by PLDT since 1980. In 2001, he was assigned as Storekeeper of the DSIM Tambo Warehouse. His duties included requisitioning replenishment stocks using specific forms (PLD 140 and PLD 158). In 2002, a drastic increase in requisition transactions and the value of materials withdrawn (from P1,069,285.36 in 2001 to P17,081,843.31 in 2002) prompted an audit. The investigation revealed a huge discrepancy between requisitioned and used/inventoried materials. Examination of the requisition forms showed forged signatures of the authorizing and receiving personnel, who disclaimed them in sworn affidavits. The Storekeeper of the DSIM Reposo Satellite Warehouse, Nimrod Paradero, positively identified Domingo as the person who presented the forged forms and received the materials, corroborated by vehicle security registries. Clerks also submitted sworn statements that Domingo instructed them to prepare the forms. PLDT issued three memoranda (dated May 14, May 25, and June 7, 2004) inviting Domingo to a formal inquiry, but he refused to receive them and failed to attend. Consequently, PLDT terminated Domingo for loss of trust and confidence and serious misconduct. Domingo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding the dismissal valid. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling that PLDT failed to prove the forgery and that the memoranda did not sufficiently inform Domingo of the charges against him.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Cecilio Z. Domingo was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and reinstated the NLRC resolution. The Court held that Domingo was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence and serious misconduct. PLDT substantially complied with procedural due process by sending three detailed invitations to a formal inquiry, which sufficiently apprised Domingo of the charges against him—his involvement in anomalous requisition transactions using forged forms in 2002. His repeated refusal to attend constituted waiver of his right to be heard. On substantive grounds, PLDT presented substantial evidence, including sworn affidavits of employees denying their signatures and identifying forgeries, Paradero’s positive identification of Domingo, vehicle registry records, and clerks’ statements, proving Domingo’s participation in the fraudulent scheme. As a storekeeper, he held a position of trust, and his actions justified dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence. The CA erred in requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt; substantial evidence is sufficient in labor cases.