Case Digest: Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80600 March 21, 1990

     Labor Law | Appeal 

• Bobby Toribiano was terminated by the Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation General Santos branch, due to alleged tampering with a receipt.
• Toribiano admitted a discrepancy in the receipt amounts, explaining it as an inadvertent mistake while handling various duties simultaneously.
• Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of Toribiano, ordering his reinstatement.
• NLRC: Affirmed the decision but modified it, removing the award of backwages.

WoN Toribiano was validly terminated. NO 

The labor arbiter made a finding that private respondent was indeed alone in the office on July 26, 1985 busily performing his duties as counter-clerk and long distance operator at the same time, the functions of which dual positions precisely caused him to commit a mistake in the entry receipt through negligence. Further, it was found that private respondent had repeatedly brought to the attention of petitioner his predicament of having to singly perform manifold duties but the same were ignored by the latter. 5

We find no cogent reason to disturb such findings. Well entrenched is the rule that when the conclusions of the labor arbiter are sufficiently corroborated by the evidence on record, the same should be respected by appellate tribunals since he is in a better position to assess and evaluate the credibility of the contending parties. Not even the failure of petitioner to present witnesses or counter-affidavits will constitute a fatal error as long as the parties were given a chance to submit position papers on the basis of which the labor arbiter rendered a decision.

Considering all the attendant circumstances, even assuming that there may have been a valid ground for dismissal, the imposition of such supreme penalty would certainly be very harsh and disproportionate to the infraction committed by private respondent, especially considering that it was private respondent's first offense after having faithfully rendered seven (7) long years of satisfactory service. These, and the fact that the imputed defalcation involved the sum of only P72.10, bolster the credibility of private respondent's explanation in his defense.

While an employer has its own interests to protect and, pursuant thereto, it may terminate an employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must not be abusively exercised. Such power should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position but his livelihood as well. 

This ruling is only in keeping with the constitutional mandate for the State to afford full protection to labor such that, when conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker.

Parenthetically, petitioner's claim that the offense in actuality partakes of the nature of falsification, which would justify outright dismissal, is of no moment. Whether or not the infraction committed constitutes a criminal act is not for this Court to rule upon in the present petition.

It is not to be misconstrued, however, that private respondent's act is being condoned, much less tolerated. As ratiocinated by respondent Commission:

However, considering that complainant is not entirely faultless as to entirely absolve him from liability, we believe that a modification of the Labor Arbiter's decision is in order in that reinstatement to his former position without backwages would be the proper relief. Of course, his reinstatement is subject to the condition that commission of similar offense will justify his outright dismissal. 

Apropos of the award of unpaid wages, the finding of the labor arbiter that private respondent was indeed not paid his salary corresponding to the month of July, 1985 was not contradicted by petitioner, for which reason it must be upheld.

A contrario sensu, regarding respondent commissions pronouncement on the award of holiday pay, rest day pay and incentive leave pay for three (3) years from August 23, 1982 to August 23, 1983 (sic), 12 we are inclined to subscribe to the position taken by the Solicitor General. On appeal to respondent commission, petitioner submitted uncontracted evidence 13 showing payment to private respondent of his holiday pay and rest day pay, and private respondent's non-entitlement to incentive leave pay due to his enjoyment of vacation leave privileges, consistent with Article 95, Chapter III, Title I, Book III of the Labor Code. Such evidence was, however, rejected by respondent commission on the erroneous justification that it was not presented at the first opportunity, presumably when the case was pending with the labor arbiter. 

The belated presentation of the evidence notwithstanding, respondent commission should have considered them just the same. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, who has impartially taken a contrary view vis-a-vis that portion of said decision of respondent commission which he is supposed to defend, technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Labor officials should use every and reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. 

Thus, even if the evidence was not submitted to the labor arbiter, the fact that it was duly introduced on appeal to respondent commission is enough basis for the latter to have been more judicious in admitting the same, instead of falling back on the mere technicality that said evidence can no longer be considered on appeal. Certainly, the first course of action would be more consistent with equity and the basic notions of fairness.

ON THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the resolution of respondent commission, dated August 21, 1987 is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the award of holiday pay, rest day pay and incentive leave pay is DELETED. In all other respects, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.