IBM PHILIPPINES VS NLRC

DOCTRINE:

The liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to limitations

imposed by basic requirements of due process; this procedural rule should
not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidenciary
rules.

The liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative

agencies, have nonetheless consistently required some PROOF OF
AUTHENTICITY OR RELIABILITY as condition for the admission of documents.

FACTS:

This case was decided before the rule on electronic evidence took effect. This
case involve the authentication of electronic evidence. This also involves
computer printout.

Private Respondent filed a complaint before the Arbitration Branch of the

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for an illegal dismissal by
herein petitioner, private respondent claimed that he was not given the
opportunity to be heard and was summarily dismissed. In labor cases it is
incumbent upon the employer to prove that the termination of the employee
was with cause and due process.

In support for employer’s claim that the termination is for cause and with
dues process, the employer presented copies of computer-generated
communication or emails sent by the superior of the employee containing
among other things the specific acts or omissions for which the employee
was terminated. This computer-generated printout cited several infractions
committed by employee and repeated reprimands and advices given by the
supervisor for him to reform and improve his work performance. According to
employer this is enough proof that the termination of the employee was for
cause and with due process. The employer has no other evidence that the
termination was legal.

Petitioner also pointed out that as an employee of IBM they are assigned ID’s
and passwords, employees may also respond/reply thru email by encoding
his message-response and admits also that the system automatically records
the time and date of each message was sent or received including the
identification of the sender and the receiver thereof.

The Labor arbiter’s decision upheld the print-out attached by petitioner as

evidence and promulgated a resolution ordering petitioner to pay private
respondent salary from June 1 to August 31, 1990 excluding all benefits.
Aggrieved with the decision private respondent appealed to the NLRC which
ordered reinstatement to complainant to its former position with his seniority
rights, backwages from August 31, 1990 in the amount of P40, 516, 65 a
month including all its benefits and bonuses. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Did NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that no just

cause or due process was observed in dismissing private respondent because
computer print-outs are inadmissible in evidence?

RULING:

SC said these pieces of documents are not admissible for absence of proper
authentication. All the copies of computer-generated email printouts were
never signed by the purported sender, the superior of the employee. Neither
are these signed by the supposed recipient, the employee. So for the
absence of signature, proper authentication has not been complied with.

Not a single officer or employee of the company was presented or either

executed an affidavit to prove that the computer-generated printouts really
came from the company’s computer system. And most importantly, no one,
not a single employee of the company testified that these messages
contained in the computer-generated printouts were not tampered. There
was no sufficient evidence for that matter that these documents were free
from the possibility of tampering, especially so since after the employee was
terminated he ceased to have access to company’s computer system.

Petitioner contend that in administrative /labor cases the technical rules on

evidence are not binding hence, the computer print-outs need not be
identified nor authenticated, same reason why private respondent was
allowed to submit additional evidences even after the case was deemed
submitted for resolution.

However, the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to

limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process; this procedural
rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental
evidenciary rules. The evidence presented before us must be at least have a
modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. The
computer print-outs, which constitute only evidence of petitioners, afford no
assurance of their authenticity since they are unsigned. The liberal view in
the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless
consistently required some PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY OR RELIABILITY as
condition for the admission of documents. The procedural technicality and
concerns are more paramount principles and requirements of due process,
which may not be sacrificed to speed or expediency, Article 22 of the Labor
Code which states that “…DUE PROCESS MUST NEVER BE SUBORDINATED TO
EXPEDIENCY OR DISPATCH”