GR 88626; (October, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 88626 October 12, 1990
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALBERTO MONTEMAYOR, MA. EMMA J. TOTESORA, MIRICAR A. MARCOS and MA. LOURDES U. MACABENTA, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves three dismissed employees of PLDT’s Davao Exchange. Private respondents Ma. Emma Totesora and Miricar Marcos, regular Traffic Operators, were dismissed for placing free long distance calls to Manila, an act violating company regulations. Totesora admitted allowing a call to extend without timing, while Marcos admitted placing a free call to her brother. Their explanations were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to termination. The third respondent, Maria Lourdes Macabenta, was terminated on the ground that she failed to meet minimum requirements for regularization after a purported probationary period beginning June 1986. Macabenta contended she had been working continuously since April 1985 and should have been considered a regular employee. The union and PLDT submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Totesora and Marcos despite finding they violated company rules; and (2) Whether the Arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion in considering Macabenta a regular employee and ordering her reinstatement.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. On the first issue, the Court held the Voluntary Arbitrator gravely abused his discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Totesora and Marcos. The legal logic is grounded on the nature of the offense and the position held. As Traffic Operators, their main function was to process long distance calls, a position demanding a high degree of trust and responsibility. Their acts of granting free calls constituted serious misconduct and breach of trust, which are valid causes for dismissal under the Labor Code. The employer, PLDT, has the right to dismiss employees for acts inimical to its interests, especially when such acts involve dishonesty and directly violate company regulations central to their duties. The Arbitrator’s finding that dismissal was “too drastic” substituted his own judgment for the management’s prerogative to impose discipline for a breach of trust, constituting an abuse of discretion.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the Arbitrator’s finding that Macabenta was a regular employee. The legal logic applies Article 280 of the Labor Code. Macabenta had rendered service from April 1985. Under the law, an employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee. Furthermore, her work as a Traffic Operator was necessary and desirable in PLDT’s usual business. Therefore, her termination based on failure to qualify as a probationary employee was illegal, as she had already attained regular status. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in this determination and ordered her reinstatement with backwages.