Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII
Cebu City
JOHN LAPUZ,
Complainant,
NLRC Case No. RAB-VII 09-8907-2012
-versusPHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY INCORPORATED (PLDT),
Respondents.
X---------------------------------------------------X
POSITION PAPER
Respondents Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company Incorporated (PLDT)
through undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submit this Position
Paper, and state that:
I
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Complainants causes of action against herein respondents are devoid of any merit both in
fact and in law, hence, the said causes of action are unfounded and frivolous, and necessarily
must fail.
II
THE PARTIES
Complainant John Lapuz was hired by respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company Inc. (PLDT) on 01 May 1992 until he was said to be illegally dismissed on 06 May
2011. At the time of his termination from his employment, he was working as a lineman with a
monthly salary of P38,000.00
Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company Inc. (PLDT) is a domestic
corporation engaged in the business of telecommunications with its principal business address at
Ramon Cojuangco Building, Makati City.
III
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The complainant filed this case against respondent corporation for illegal dismissal
because of lack of just cause and for want of due process. He is asking for reinstatement with full
backwages including all benefits entitled to him under the present and future CBA between
PLDT and MKP, from the time of his illegal dismissal to the time of his actual reinstatement,
moral and exemplary damages and 10% attorneys fees based on the total monetary award.
Respondent corporation acknowledge that the complainant was employed as a Plant
Combinationman III. Aside from his regular duties, the complainant also requisitions materials
and supplies. He is allowed to receive these supplies and materials such as jumper wires, from
the companys warehouse for delivery to the Mactan Customer Service Zone Office (Mactan
CSZ) where he was assigned.
Depending on the available supply, requisitions of materials are filled up by the employee
and signed by their field service supervisors (FSS). The employee then delivers the accomplished

requisition order (RO) slip to the warehouse and withdraws the supplies and materials for
delivery to or use of the CSZ concerned.
In late November 2010, Mr. Erwin Rubi, the FSS of Mactan CSZ started noticing losses
of rolls of jumper wires from its Mactan Main Distribution Frame. He immediately notified the
Visayas Asset Protection Division (VAP Division) which conducted an investigation of all
Mactan MDF personnel.
During the investigation, the VAP division received a tip that the complainant made a
questionable requisition of three (3) rolls of jumper wires from the Mandaue Supply Warehouse.
Collectively, the three reels of jumper wires had a market value of P 21,000.00.
It learned that the complainant was able to obtain the jumper wires thru a requisition
order (RO) bearing serial number 1896350 dated 23 December 2010. According to said RO, its
purpose was for SPC/MDF jumpering at the Mactan CSZ. Per its security logbook, the
complainant pulled out the jumper wires from the warehouse at exactly 11:20 oclock in the
morning.
Hence, on 05 January 2011, the VAP Division thru Mario Ponce invited the complainant
(Annex C), Nelson Gabayan (Annex D), Guiller Absin (Annex E) and Crisologo Dela
Cerna (Annex F) to shed light on the missing rolls. Aside from them, Erwin Rubi and Dowena
Cocgin were present as witnesses.
When questioned, the complainant admitted two things: a) he gave one (1) reel of jumper
wire to a supplier whose name and designation he no longer remembered, and b) the remaining
reels of wires he brought home without authorization.
On the basis of the above statements, respondent PLDT sent to the complainant a request
for explanation and charged him with Serious Misconduct and Fraud.
After receiving all of the requested documents, the complainant submitted his explanation
on 10 February 2011. While denying the charges against him, he admitted the following: a) The
Cable Specialist personnel whose identity he failed to identify already returned the jumper wire
reel, and b) That all the three reels of jumper wires are now in his possession.
On 04 May 2011, Mr. Edwin Lintag, the Assistant Vice president of Cebu CSZ issued a
Notice of Termination to the complainant.
On 16 May 2011, the complainant filed a complaint against respondent PLDT asking for
separation pay, moral damages, and attorneys fees. More than a month later or on 27 June 2011,
the complainant amended his complaint and asked for reinstatement instead of separation pay.
For failure to arrive at any amicable settlement during the conciliation conferences, this
Honorable Office required the herein Parties to submit their respective Position Papers.
Hence, this Position Paper for the Respondents.
IV
ISSUES
A.) Whether or not the complainant was illegally dismissed.
B.) Whether or not the complainant is entitled to his money claims.
V
DISCUSSION / ARGUMENTS
A.) Complainant was not illegally dismissed.
Under Sec. 279 of the Labor Code provides that:
The employer shall not terminate the service of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by law.

The complainant was lawfully dismissed for Serious Misconduct and Fraud when he failed to
produce or deliver the reels of jumper wires he requisitioned and could not satisfactorily explain
its whereabouts. Serious misconduct and fraud are just causes for the termination of
employment.
Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, it states that:
An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or
any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for a
just cause. Among the just causes in the Labor Code is serious misconduct. Misconduct is
improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not
mere error in judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the Labor Code
must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such
misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to
constitute just cause for his separation.
There was substantial evidence to show that the dismissal was for a just cause and that the
complainant was afforded due process to the employee because its requisition order was irregular
due to the following reason:
a.) The requisition slip was made without a request coming from the complainants
immediate supervisor;
b.) There was no need to requisition for jumper wires because there was still enough supplies
since on 15 December 2010;
c.) Curiously, the complainant obtained the approval of Dominador Pacaldo, who was the
FSS of PLDT Jones CSZ. Although admittedly, all FSS regardless of their territorial
jurisdiction, may sign the RO, the complainant should have first obtained the written
approval of his immediate superior, Erwin Rubi or Nelson Gabayan, the authorized
signatory in the absence of Mr. Rubi since both individuals were present on 23 December
2010;
d.) The complainant did not deliver the three (3) rolls of jumper wires to Mactan CSZ.
Relevant in this case is the ruling in Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines
vs Lariosa, G.R. No. L-70479, where the Supreme Court ruled that:
The stealing of a company-owned property is a just cause for termination of employment of
the culprit under Article 282 of the Labor Code, specifically on the ground of serious
misconduct or fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or authorized representative.
B.) Complainant is not entitled to his money claims.
The minimum standards of due process in all cases of termination of employment are
prescribed under Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, to wit:
Art. 277. Miscellaneous Provisions.
xxxx

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be
protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to
the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the
worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement
of the cause for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires, in accordance with
company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of
Labor and Employment.
It is implemented by Rule XXIII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code,
which provides:
Section 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice. - x x x.
I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his
side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of
counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
termination. x x x.
Respondent PLDT afforded and complied with the two-notice rule under the Labor Code.
He was served with two (2) written notices. At the heart of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings is simply an opportunity to be heard and explain ones side.
Complainant is therefore not entitled to reinstatement, damages and attorneys fees
because the respondent had sufficiently established that PLDT faithfully complied with all the
substantive and procedural requirements.
Respondent PLDT has every right under the Labor Code to dismiss employees
performing acts inimical to the companys interest. To allow the respondent corporation to
condone the complainants act of misappropriating/stealing company property will be sending
the wrong message to its entire workforce that it is perfectly excusable to misappropriate, steal
or bring home company property. Such inimical acts which the complainant committed against
his employer cannot and should not be countenanced.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Office to dismiss the instant complaint for utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. Cebu City, Philippines, October 3, 2012.

Felix Geromo
Counsel For Respondents
Attorneys Roll No. 67804
IBP No. 876490/2-11-12/Cebu
PTR No. 8966437/2-11-12/Cebu
MCLE Comp. Cert. No. III-0008897
Gov. M Roa St., Capitol Site, Cebu City

VERIFICATION

I, ERWIN RUBI, Filipino, of legal age, and with office address at Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company Incorporated, Ramon Cojuangco Building, Makati City, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That I am one of the respondent in the instant case; and
2.That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper, have read the
same and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and
based on authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 3 rd day of
October 2012, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

ERWIN RUBI
Affiant
CTC No. 87690976
Cebu City/03-10-2012
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of October 2012, in the
City of Cebu, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate above-written.

Hakam Nepomuceno
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
Notarial Commission No. 098-10
Roll No. 78998
IBP No. 67897564 : 1-11-11 : Cebu City
PTR No. 697578 : 1-11-11 : Cebu City
MCLE Exempt

Doc. No.
______;
Page No.
______;
Book No.
______;
Series of 2012.