SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November 11, 2005 ]PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON +
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON +
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Being questioned in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 16, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 51855 and 52247, and the Resolution dated July 27, 2004 denying the motion
for reconsideration thereof.
On April 16, 1986, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) employed Antonio Q. Tiamson as a Radio Technician II (JG4). He was assigned at the company's North Luzon Toll Network Division, Clark Transmission Maintenance Center (Clark-TMC) in Pampanga. After the expiration of the probationary period, he was extended regular appointment for the same position.
In a Letter[2] dated July 29, 1994, Anthony Dy Dee, the President of the Angeles City Telephone System and Datelcom Corporation, informed PLDT of his complaint against its employees assigned in Clark-TMC, stating therein that he suspected them to be in cohorts with the local subscribers in effecting illegal overseas calls. Acting on the letter-complaint, PLDT immediately dispatched a team of inspectors and investigators from its Quality Control and Inspection Department (QCID) and Security Division to conduct surveillance operations in the area. On August 2, 1994, Vidal Busa, a radio technician, was caught in flagrante delicto while monitoring an illegally connected overseas call using the radio facilities of the company's Clark-TMC Radio Room.[3]
The QCID, likewise, requested the Switching Network Division at PLDT's Sampaloc National Toll Center to print the CAMA[4] tape recording of all long distance calls originating from the PLDT Clark Exchange Traffic for the period of July 29 to August 2, 1994. The printout revealed that a total of 469 fraudulent overseas and local calls were connected and completed at the PLDT Clark-TMC Radio Room for the said period. Three overseas calls to Saudi Arabia made on August 1, 1994 were imputed to Tiamson who appeared to be on duty from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.[5]
The QCID conducted its initial investigation on August 2, 1994, where Busa readily admitted his involvement in the illegal connection of overseas calls. In his sworn statement, he specifically named Arnel Cayanan, his Shift Supervisor, Antonio Tiamson and Paul Cruzada, both radio technicians, as the other employees actively engaged in the illegal practice. He stated that he knew about this because whenever he would relieve them from their tour of duty, he would see that the circuit was engaged.[6]
On August 3, 1994, during a confrontation between Busa and Tiamson, the former reiterated his earlier statement that the latter was involved in the illegal act of connecting overseas calls.[7] For his part, Tiamson admitted that he knew how to make an overseas call using the company's radio equipment and that he learned how to do so through hands-on experimentation and intensive reading of operating manuals. He, however, denied having actually made an illegal connection of overseas calls. He declared that he knew of the wrongdoings of Busa and even disconnected the latter's overseas telephone calls whenever he (Tiamson) was on duty. Tiamson claimed that he failed to report the actuations of Busa because the latter was his supervisor and was afraid to antagonize him.[8]
On August 5, 1994, there was another confrontation proceeding between Busa, Tiamson, Cruzada and Cayanan. In their sworn statements, Busa and Cruzada testified that, sometimes when they relieve Cayanan from his duty, they would discover an illegal connection and an on-going conversation in the line.[9] Tiamson maintained that he disconnected the illegal calls of Busa, while Cayanan implicated his subordinates.
The QCID recommended that administrative action for serious misconduct be instituted against the said employees. Consequently, the company issued to Tiamson an Inter-Office Memorandum dated August 12, 1994, charging him with violation of the company's disciplinary rules and regulations. He was, likewise, required to explain within 72 hours why he should not be dismissed, thus:
On August 18, 1994, Tiamson submitted his written explanation denying any participation in the illegal activities at PLDT's Clark-TMC. He averred that Busa's statement against him was malicious and untrue and that he was the one relieving Busa from his tour of duty and not the other way around. He insisted that on August 1, 1994, his tour of duty was from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.[12]
PLDT found his explanation unsatisfactory and inadequate in substance. Thus, it issued an Inter-Office Memo[13] dated October 5, 1994, terminating Tiamson's employment effective October 7, 1994 on the ground of serious misconduct and/or fraud.
Tiamson filed a complaint against PLDT for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, damages and other monetary claims, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-07-6414-95.
The Labor Arbiter resolved the case in favor of Tiamson:
PLDT elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On August 31, 1998, the NLRC ruled that while there was just cause for Tiamson's dismissal, the penalty of dismissal was too harsh. Hence, the NLRC ordered that Tiamson be reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority rights, but without backwages.[15]
Both parties moved to reconsider the decision, but the NLRC denied the motions for lack of merit.[16]
PLDT filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, assailing the NLRC's order of reinstatement despite a categorical finding that Tiamson was guilty of illegal connection of overseas calls. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51855. Tiamson filed a similar petition, assailing the deletion of the award of backwages and attorney's fees. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 52247. The CA, thereafter, ordered the consolidation of the two petitions.
On April 16, 2004, the CA reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, thus:
The CA likewise opined that the respondent was denied due process when he was not apprised of nor given the opportunity to confute the charge that during his duty on August 1, 1994, three overseas calls to Saudi Arabia were recorded in the CAMA tape.[19]
The petitioner timely filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution[20] dated July 27, 2004.
The petitioner now comes before this Court, alleging that:
The petitioner further asserts that the respondent failed to show that Busa was actuated and impelled by improper motive and bad faith in executing his sworn statement.[23] The records show that Busa, from the very start, had categorically and unequivocally named the respondent as one of those engaged in the illegal connection of overseas calls.[24] Moreover, Busa's sworn statement had been corroborated by the printout of the CAMA tapes (which disclosed that during the respondent's August 1, 1994 duty, three fraudulent calls to Saudi Arabia were illegally made),[25] as well as Cayanan's sworn statement implicating the respondent.[26]
The petitioner submits that the respondent's offense was serious in character and merits the penalty of dismissal from employment. It contends that the respondent was accorded the full measure of due process before he was dismissed: he was given a notice which apprised him of the charge against him and required him to explain why he should not be dismissed, and later, a notice of termination. The petitioner claims that the Labor Code simply requires that the employee be given a written notice containing a statement of the causes of termination. It insists that the printout of the recording of the CAMA tapes showing that three illegal connections were made on August 1, 1994 is a mere evidentiary matter that need not be mentioned in the notice.[27]
For his part, the respondent avers that Busa's statement was uncorroborated and hearsay for lack of cross-examination. He insists that Busa could not have seen him make illegal connections since the latter's shift came before his.[28]
The petitioner replies that an affidavit may be admissible even if the witness is not presented during trial because technical rules are not strictly followed in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.[29]
The petition has no merit.
It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32]
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[33] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.[34] Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[35]
In this case, the appellate court ruled for respondent Tiamson, ratiocinating as follows:
The respondent disputes the admissibility of Busa's sworn statements for being hearsay since the latter was not presented for cross-examination. This argument, however, is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.[37]
The Court agrees with the contentions of the respondent and the findings and rulings of the CA.
The petitioner indeed failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove that the dismissal of the respondent was for a just cause. In his first sworn statement, Busa implicated the respondent in the illegal connections of overseas calls in this manner:
Although admissible in evidence, affidavits being self-serving must be received with caution. This is because the adverse party is not afforded any opportunity to test their veracity.[41] By themselves, generalized and pro forma affidavits cannot constitute relevant evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate.[42] There must be some other relevant evidence to corroborate such affidavits.
On this point, the petitioner submits that the printout of the CAMA tapes corroborated Busa's sworn statement. A perusal of the printout, however, shows that it is not authenticated by the proper officer of the company. Moreover, the name of the respondent and the other annotations in the said printout are handwritten and unsigned.
The ruling in Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission[43] is instructive on how such document should be treated. In that case, the employer submitted a handwritten listing and computer printouts to establish the charges against the employee. The handwritten listing was not signed, and while there was a computer-generated listing, the entries of time and other annotations therein were also handwritten and unsigned. The Court ruled that the handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts were unauthenticated, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence (of which the listing and printouts are of that nature) should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings.[44]
Thus, in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[45] the Court elucidated the extent of the liberality of procedure in administrative actions:
To conclude, the petitioner has not established by substantial evidence that there was just cause for the respondent's termination from his employment. The sworn statements of Busa and Cayanan alone are not sufficient to establish that the respondent was guilty of serious misconduct. In light of such finding, there is no need to delve into whether or not the respondent was afforded due process when he was dismissed by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 16, 2004, and its Resolution dated July 27, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 51855 and 52247 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Chico-Nazario, J., on leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with Associate Justices Sergio L. Pestaño (deceased) and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; Rollo, pp. 41-51.
[2] Rollo, p. 61.
[3] Id. at 64.
[4] The records do not disclose what the acronym stands for. It appears, however, that CAMA stands for Centralized Automatic Message Accounting, an automatic message accounting system that serves more than one switch from a central location. www.cpupedia.com/definition/centralized+automatic+message +accounting+(cama).aspx (visited 25 October 2005)
[5] Rollo, p. 70.
[6] Id. at 65.
[7] Id. at 67.
[8] Rollo, pp. 68-69.
[9] Id. at 99-100.
[10] Rollo, p. 71.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Id. at 73-74.
[13] Id. at 75.
[14] Rollo, p. 119.
[15] CA Rollo, p. 150. (CA G.R. SP No. 52247)
[16] Id. at 169.
[17] Rollo, pp. 50-51.
[18] Id. at 47-48.
[19] Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[20] Id. at 53-55.
[21] Id. at 14-15.
[22] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[23] Id. at 17.
[24] Id. at 20.
[25] Id. at 18.
[26] Id. at 20.
[27] Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[28] Id. at 253.
[29] Id. at 264.
[30] Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, 28 January 2003, 396 SCRA 518.
[31] Alfredo v. Borras, G.R. No. 144225, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 145.
[32] Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, G.R. No. 140982, 23 September 2003, 411 SCRA 512.
[33] Solidbank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151026, 25 August 2003, 409 SCRA 554.
[34] Sy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, 27 February 2003, 398 SCRA 301.
[35] Salvador v. Philippine Mining Services Corporation, G.R. No. 148766, 22 January 2003, 395 SCRA 729.
[36] Rollo, pp. 47-50.
[37] Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 153660, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 699.
[38] Rollo, p. 65.
[39] Id. at 67.
[40] Id. at 101.
[41] Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 131405, 20 July 1999, 310 SCRA 846.
[42] Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, at 863.
[43] G.R. No. 129329, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 56.
[44] Id. at 63.
[45] G.R. No. 121434, 2 June 1997, 273 SCRA 35.
[46] Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, at 44-45.
[47] IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117221, 13 April 1999, 305 SCRA 592.
On April 16, 1986, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) employed Antonio Q. Tiamson as a Radio Technician II (JG4). He was assigned at the company's North Luzon Toll Network Division, Clark Transmission Maintenance Center (Clark-TMC) in Pampanga. After the expiration of the probationary period, he was extended regular appointment for the same position.
In a Letter[2] dated July 29, 1994, Anthony Dy Dee, the President of the Angeles City Telephone System and Datelcom Corporation, informed PLDT of his complaint against its employees assigned in Clark-TMC, stating therein that he suspected them to be in cohorts with the local subscribers in effecting illegal overseas calls. Acting on the letter-complaint, PLDT immediately dispatched a team of inspectors and investigators from its Quality Control and Inspection Department (QCID) and Security Division to conduct surveillance operations in the area. On August 2, 1994, Vidal Busa, a radio technician, was caught in flagrante delicto while monitoring an illegally connected overseas call using the radio facilities of the company's Clark-TMC Radio Room.[3]
The QCID, likewise, requested the Switching Network Division at PLDT's Sampaloc National Toll Center to print the CAMA[4] tape recording of all long distance calls originating from the PLDT Clark Exchange Traffic for the period of July 29 to August 2, 1994. The printout revealed that a total of 469 fraudulent overseas and local calls were connected and completed at the PLDT Clark-TMC Radio Room for the said period. Three overseas calls to Saudi Arabia made on August 1, 1994 were imputed to Tiamson who appeared to be on duty from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.[5]
The QCID conducted its initial investigation on August 2, 1994, where Busa readily admitted his involvement in the illegal connection of overseas calls. In his sworn statement, he specifically named Arnel Cayanan, his Shift Supervisor, Antonio Tiamson and Paul Cruzada, both radio technicians, as the other employees actively engaged in the illegal practice. He stated that he knew about this because whenever he would relieve them from their tour of duty, he would see that the circuit was engaged.[6]
On August 3, 1994, during a confrontation between Busa and Tiamson, the former reiterated his earlier statement that the latter was involved in the illegal act of connecting overseas calls.[7] For his part, Tiamson admitted that he knew how to make an overseas call using the company's radio equipment and that he learned how to do so through hands-on experimentation and intensive reading of operating manuals. He, however, denied having actually made an illegal connection of overseas calls. He declared that he knew of the wrongdoings of Busa and even disconnected the latter's overseas telephone calls whenever he (Tiamson) was on duty. Tiamson claimed that he failed to report the actuations of Busa because the latter was his supervisor and was afraid to antagonize him.[8]
On August 5, 1994, there was another confrontation proceeding between Busa, Tiamson, Cruzada and Cayanan. In their sworn statements, Busa and Cruzada testified that, sometimes when they relieve Cayanan from his duty, they would discover an illegal connection and an on-going conversation in the line.[9] Tiamson maintained that he disconnected the illegal calls of Busa, while Cayanan implicated his subordinates.
The QCID recommended that administrative action for serious misconduct be instituted against the said employees. Consequently, the company issued to Tiamson an Inter-Office Memorandum dated August 12, 1994, charging him with violation of the company's disciplinary rules and regulations. He was, likewise, required to explain within 72 hours why he should not be dismissed, thus:
Investigation of the complaint indicated hereunder disclosed that:Meanwhile, Tiamson was placed under preventive suspension on August 16, 1994.[11]
The acts described above are in violation of the Company's rules and regulations and is punishable with dismissal from the service.
- Complainant Mr. Anthony Dy, President DATELCOM Corp.
- The decrease of toll revenue for DATELCOM Angeles/Mabalacat Exchange due to fraudulent overseas call scam was complained and notified by Mr. A. Dy to Mrs. B. G. Gendrano Clark Exchange Division Head on July 26, 1994.
- The complainant requested assistance to NBI and PLDT QCI to apprehend the personnel responsible for the illegal connection.
- A clue was provided by Mr. Anthony Dy that the illegal overseas call was coming from Clark-TMC through taped and equipment monitoring.
- In the QCI investigation, you were implicated by your fellow Radio Technician Mr. Vidal C. Busa as involved in the case. You admitted you know how to operate the Lenkurt 26600 Signalling Test Set to initiate a call but denied doing it for personal gain or interest but you failed to report the anomaly to your superior as one of your supervisors was involved in the fraudulent case.
In view of the above, please explain in writing within 72 hours from receipt hereof why you should not be dismissed from the service for the acts described above. You may elect to be heard if you so desire. ...[10]
On August 18, 1994, Tiamson submitted his written explanation denying any participation in the illegal activities at PLDT's Clark-TMC. He averred that Busa's statement against him was malicious and untrue and that he was the one relieving Busa from his tour of duty and not the other way around. He insisted that on August 1, 1994, his tour of duty was from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.[12]
PLDT found his explanation unsatisfactory and inadequate in substance. Thus, it issued an Inter-Office Memo[13] dated October 5, 1994, terminating Tiamson's employment effective October 7, 1994 on the ground of serious misconduct and/or fraud.
Tiamson filed a complaint against PLDT for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, damages and other monetary claims, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-07-6414-95.
The Labor Arbiter resolved the case in favor of Tiamson:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondent PLDT guilty of illegal dismissal and it is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages reckoned from the date of his dismissal up to his actual or payroll reinstatement at the option of the respondent, which as of this date is in the amount of Three Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Five and 32/100 (P372,825.32) Pesos.The Labor Arbiter declared that the complainant could not have made any illegal connection on August 1, 1994 from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. because he was off-duty.
Further, respondent is ordered to pay complainant attorney's fee in the amount of Thirty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Two and 53/100 (P37,282.53) Pesos.
The claims for moral and exemplary damages are dismissed for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED.[14]
PLDT elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On August 31, 1998, the NLRC ruled that while there was just cause for Tiamson's dismissal, the penalty of dismissal was too harsh. Hence, the NLRC ordered that Tiamson be reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority rights, but without backwages.[15]
Both parties moved to reconsider the decision, but the NLRC denied the motions for lack of merit.[16]
PLDT filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, assailing the NLRC's order of reinstatement despite a categorical finding that Tiamson was guilty of illegal connection of overseas calls. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51855. Tiamson filed a similar petition, assailing the deletion of the award of backwages and attorney's fees. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 52247. The CA, thereafter, ordered the consolidation of the two petitions.
On April 16, 2004, the CA reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition by the PLDT under CA-G.R. SP No. 51855 is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED while the petition by Antonio Tiamson under CA-G.R. SP No. 52247 is GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED, and the Decision dated October 15, 1997 of the Labor Arbiter which was set aside by the NLRC, is hereby REINSTATED in its fullness and without modifications.The CA held that Busa's sworn statement was not worthy of credence, a mere afterthought, the contents of which were seriously flawed. The appellate court found it difficult to believe Busa's assertion that, on several occasions when he came to relieve the respondent, a circuit was in use which the latter would turn off before leaving. In this regard, the appellate court noted that Busa's work shift preceded that of the respondent, such that it would be impossible for him to see the respondent make an illegal connection.[18]
SO ORDERED.[17]
The CA likewise opined that the respondent was denied due process when he was not apprised of nor given the opportunity to confute the charge that during his duty on August 1, 1994, three overseas calls to Saudi Arabia were recorded in the CAMA tape.[19]
The petitioner timely filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution[20] dated July 27, 2004.
The petitioner now comes before this Court, alleging that:
... THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN REINSTATING THE DECISION OF THE ARBITER A QUO AS SAID DECISION WAS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.[21]The petitioner submits that it has presented more than substantial evidence to prove that the respondent was involved in the illegal connection of overseas calls. The petitioner avers that the CA erred in holding that Busa's sworn statement was not credible. According to the CA, it would have been impossible for Busa to see the respondent making an illegal connection since his tour of duty preceded that of the respondent. The petitioner, however, asserts that there was a rotation of the employees' tour of duty such that, at times, it was Busa who would take over from the respondent; hence, Busa had the occasion to personally see the respondent connecting illegal calls. In support of this, the petitioner proffers the copy of logbook entries from July 13 to August 3, 1994, which was attached to its Memorandum of Appeal filed with the NLRC. The logbook shows that on several occasions, it was Busa who took over from the respondent.[22]
The petitioner further asserts that the respondent failed to show that Busa was actuated and impelled by improper motive and bad faith in executing his sworn statement.[23] The records show that Busa, from the very start, had categorically and unequivocally named the respondent as one of those engaged in the illegal connection of overseas calls.[24] Moreover, Busa's sworn statement had been corroborated by the printout of the CAMA tapes (which disclosed that during the respondent's August 1, 1994 duty, three fraudulent calls to Saudi Arabia were illegally made),[25] as well as Cayanan's sworn statement implicating the respondent.[26]
The petitioner submits that the respondent's offense was serious in character and merits the penalty of dismissal from employment. It contends that the respondent was accorded the full measure of due process before he was dismissed: he was given a notice which apprised him of the charge against him and required him to explain why he should not be dismissed, and later, a notice of termination. The petitioner claims that the Labor Code simply requires that the employee be given a written notice containing a statement of the causes of termination. It insists that the printout of the recording of the CAMA tapes showing that three illegal connections were made on August 1, 1994 is a mere evidentiary matter that need not be mentioned in the notice.[27]
For his part, the respondent avers that Busa's statement was uncorroborated and hearsay for lack of cross-examination. He insists that Busa could not have seen him make illegal connections since the latter's shift came before his.[28]
The petitioner replies that an affidavit may be admissible even if the witness is not presented during trial because technical rules are not strictly followed in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.[29]
The petition has no merit.
It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32]
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[33] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.[34] Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[35]
In this case, the appellate court ruled for respondent Tiamson, ratiocinating as follows:
The issues posed by both parties involve the evaluation of the findings of facts by the agencies a quo. While the general rule is that factual issues could not be properly raised and considered in a petition for certiorari, it however admits of this exception that a disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and those of the NLRC opens the door to review thereof by the Supreme Court (Asuncion vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 362 SCRA 56), including, of course, the Court of Appeals.The petitioner maintains that contrary to the findings and conclusions of the appellate court, it has established through substantial evidence that there was just cause for the respondent's dismissal. To bolster such contention, the petitioner adduces the following documentary evidences: (1) the sworn statements of Vidal Busa specifically implicating the respondent; (2) the sworn statement of Arnel Cayanan; and (3) the printout of the CAMA tape, recording the unauthorized overseas calls originating from Clark-TMC during the respondent's tour of duty.
The crux of both petitions is whether the NLRC with its findings quoted below, was correct in setting aside the disposition of the Labor Arbiter:
We disagree that respondent failed to present evidence linking complainant to the illegal connection scam. As pointed out by the respondent, co-employee Busa and Cayanan in the course of their investigation implicated complainant's participation in illegal overseas connection. Complainant also failed to refute respondent's evidence that on August 1, 1994, while he was on duty, three (3) overseas calls to Saudi Arabia were recorded in cama tape (Annex 4, p. 30, records).Our review of the records reveals that among the three employees who issued sworn statements, namely, Busa, Cayanan and Cruzada, it was only Busa who directly implicated Tiamson and it was done inexplicably only in his second sworn statement. It does not inspire credence as it comes as an afterthought and the contents are seriously flawed on material points. Looming large is the claim of Busa that on several occasions when he came to relieve Tiamson, he observed that his circuit was logged on and in use, and Tiamson would then put it off before leaving. This is a canard because the shift of Busa was from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and of course ahead of the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift of Tiamson who came in as his reliever. Their tours of duty was in the converse order of what Busa claimed, and so he spoke with a forked tongue when he stated that Tiamson at the preceding shift had his circuit logged on and switched this off when he left.
However, we consider the penalty of dismissal too harsh considering that respondent imposed a sixty (60)-day suspension on Paul Cruzada, a co-employee of complainant who submitted (sic) culpability. For where a lesser punitive penalty would suffice, the supreme penalty of dismissal should be visited (Almira vs. B.F. Goodrich, 58 SCRA 120). Under the circumstances, reinstatement but without backwages is appropriate (pp. 39-40, Rollo)
A no less important point is the undisputed fact that Tiamson was not given the opportunity to confute the charge that on August 1, 1994 while he was on duty, three (3) overseas calls to Saudi Arabia were recorded in the cama tape. This was not indicated in the memorandum sent to him on August 12, 1994, the full text of which reads:
Procedural due process requires that an employee be apprised of the charge against him, given reasonable time to answer the same, allowed ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself, and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires (Concorde Hotel vs. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 583; underlining supplied). Procedural due process requires that the employer serve the employees to be dismissed two (2) written notices before the termination of their employment is effected: (a) the first, to apprise them of the particular acts or omission for which their dismissal is sought; and (b) second, to inform them of the decision of the employer that they are being dismissed (Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. vs. Faburada, 366 SCRA 693; underlining supplied). The Labor Arbiter, therefore, was correct in ruling that Tiamson was indeed illegally dismissed from his employment.[36]August 12, 1994
TO : MR. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON Radio Tech II Clark TMC
FROM : Division Head, North Luzon Toll Network
SUBJECT : ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
Investigation of the complaint indicated hereunder disclosed that:
The acts described above are in violation of the Company's rules and regulations and is punishable with dismissal from the service.
- Complainant Mr. Anthony Dy, President DATELCOM Corp.
- The decrease of toll revenue for DATELCOM Angeles/Mabalacat Exchange due to fraudulent overseas call scam was complained and notified by Mr. A. Dy to Mrs. H. G. Gendrano Clark Exchange Division Head on July 26, 1994.
- The complainant requested assistance to NBI and PLDT QCI to apprehend the personnel responsible for the illegal connection.
- A clue was provided by Mr. Anthony Dy that the illegal overseas call was coming from Clark-TMC through taped and equipment monitoring.
- In the QCI investigation, you were implicated by your fellow Radio Technician Mr. Vidal C. Busa as involved in the case. You admitted you know how to operate the Lenkurt 26600 Signalling Test Set to initiate a call but denied doing it for personal gain or interest but you failed to report the anomaly to your superior as one of your supervisors was involved in the fraudulent case.
In view of the above, please explain in writing within 72 hours from receipt hereof why you should not be dismissed from the service for the acts described above. You may elect to be heard if you so desire.
Please be informed also that you will be placed under preventive suspension which will take effect on August 16, 1994 pending resolution of the case.
If no written explanation is received from you within the said period of 72 hours, this case will be decided on the basis of the evidence on hand. (p. 227, Rollo)
(SGD.)ARMANDO A. ABESAMIS
The respondent disputes the admissibility of Busa's sworn statements for being hearsay since the latter was not presented for cross-examination. This argument, however, is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.[37]
The Court agrees with the contentions of the respondent and the findings and rulings of the CA.
The petitioner indeed failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove that the dismissal of the respondent was for a just cause. In his first sworn statement, Busa implicated the respondent in the illegal connections of overseas calls in this manner:
During the confrontation between Busa and the respondent, the former likewise made the following statements:
T 25 S T 26
ang magpa-patch ng mga tawag sa abroad o overseas?S T 27 S T 28 S
On the other hand, during the confrontation among all four employees implicated in the matter, Cayanan testified that he was aware that his "subordinates" were engaged in illegal activities. However, he failed to specifically mention who these subordinates were.[40]
T 3 - S - T 4 - S - T 5 - S - T 6 - S -
Although admissible in evidence, affidavits being self-serving must be received with caution. This is because the adverse party is not afforded any opportunity to test their veracity.[41] By themselves, generalized and pro forma affidavits cannot constitute relevant evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate.[42] There must be some other relevant evidence to corroborate such affidavits.
On this point, the petitioner submits that the printout of the CAMA tapes corroborated Busa's sworn statement. A perusal of the printout, however, shows that it is not authenticated by the proper officer of the company. Moreover, the name of the respondent and the other annotations in the said printout are handwritten and unsigned.
The ruling in Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission[43] is instructive on how such document should be treated. In that case, the employer submitted a handwritten listing and computer printouts to establish the charges against the employee. The handwritten listing was not signed, and while there was a computer-generated listing, the entries of time and other annotations therein were also handwritten and unsigned. The Court ruled that the handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts were unauthenticated, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence (of which the listing and printouts are of that nature) should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings.[44]
Thus, in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[45] the Court elucidated the extent of the liberality of procedure in administrative actions:
... It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. ...[46]The decisions of this Court, while adhering to a liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless consistently required some proof of authenticity or reliability as a condition for the admission of documents.[47] Absent any such proof of authenticity, the printout of the CAMA tape should be considered inadmissible, hence, without any probative weight.
To conclude, the petitioner has not established by substantial evidence that there was just cause for the respondent's termination from his employment. The sworn statements of Busa and Cayanan alone are not sufficient to establish that the respondent was guilty of serious misconduct. In light of such finding, there is no need to delve into whether or not the respondent was afforded due process when he was dismissed by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 16, 2004, and its Resolution dated July 27, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 51855 and 52247 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Chico-Nazario, J., on leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with Associate Justices Sergio L. Pestaño (deceased) and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; Rollo, pp. 41-51.
[2] Rollo, p. 61.
[3] Id. at 64.
[4] The records do not disclose what the acronym stands for. It appears, however, that CAMA stands for Centralized Automatic Message Accounting, an automatic message accounting system that serves more than one switch from a central location. www.cpupedia.com/definition/centralized+automatic+message +accounting+(cama).aspx (visited 25 October 2005)
[5] Rollo, p. 70.
[6] Id. at 65.
[7] Id. at 67.
[8] Rollo, pp. 68-69.
[9] Id. at 99-100.
[10] Rollo, p. 71.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Id. at 73-74.
[13] Id. at 75.
[14] Rollo, p. 119.
[15] CA Rollo, p. 150. (CA G.R. SP No. 52247)
[16] Id. at 169.
[17] Rollo, pp. 50-51.
[18] Id. at 47-48.
[19] Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[20] Id. at 53-55.
[21] Id. at 14-15.
[22] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[23] Id. at 17.
[24] Id. at 20.
[25] Id. at 18.
[26] Id. at 20.
[27] Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[28] Id. at 253.
[29] Id. at 264.
[30] Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, 28 January 2003, 396 SCRA 518.
[31] Alfredo v. Borras, G.R. No. 144225, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 145.
[32] Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, G.R. No. 140982, 23 September 2003, 411 SCRA 512.
[33] Solidbank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151026, 25 August 2003, 409 SCRA 554.
[34] Sy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, 27 February 2003, 398 SCRA 301.
[35] Salvador v. Philippine Mining Services Corporation, G.R. No. 148766, 22 January 2003, 395 SCRA 729.
[36] Rollo, pp. 47-50.
[37] Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 153660, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 699.
[38] Rollo, p. 65.
[39] Id. at 67.
[40] Id. at 101.
[41] Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 131405, 20 July 1999, 310 SCRA 846.
[42] Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, at 863.
[43] G.R. No. 129329, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 56.
[44] Id. at 63.
[45] G.R. No. 121434, 2 June 1997, 273 SCRA 35.
[46] Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, at 44-45.
[47] IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117221, 13 April 1999, 305 SCRA 592.