PLDT vs. BALBASTRO

PLDT vs. BALBASTRO

G.R. No. 157202 - March 28, 2007

FACTS:

Private respondent Amparo Balbastro was employed by petitioner in 1978 as its telephone operator until her questioned dismissal from employment on October 5, 1989. She was dismissed by petitioner for her absences without authorized leave due to unconfirmed sick leave on June 28 to July 14, 1989, which constituted her third offense punishable by dismissal under petitioner’s rules and regulations.

On October 28, 1991, private respondent filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter against petitioner and its President, Antonio Cojuangco, for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary wage, premium pay for rest day, 13^th month pay, and damages. In her position paper, she alleged that she was dismissed on the ground of unconfirmed sick leave despite her presentation of medical certificates from her attending physicians which were not considered by petitioner’s medical doctors; and that she has four minor children and it was not her intention to habitually absent herself without reason. Considering that her loss of job which was based only on opinions of petitioner’s doctors had caused her great deprivation and moral suffering, she prayed for reinstatement, backwages, and damages.

Petitioner filed its position paper with Motion to Dismiss alleging that private respondent’s habitual and unjustified absences was a just and valid cause for her termination under its rules and regulations.

On May 30, 1994, the Labor Arbiter issued its Decision ordering petitioner herein to reinstate private respondent. Petitioner filed its appeal with the NLRC which issued a Resolution affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter on January 19, 1996. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated March 14, 1996.

On July 31, 2002, the Court of Appeals issued its assailed Decision which dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s Decision. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated February 7, 2003. Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent was validly dismissed.

RULING:

Yes.

Under petitioner’s Department Order No. ADM-79-02, for the absence due to an alleged illness be considered unauthorized, without pay, and subject to disciplinary action, it must be shown that the medical certificate is forged, altered as to the date and contents, false as to the facts stated therein, issued by a doctor not qualified to attend to the patient’s illness, and there is a patent abuse of sick leave privileges. The penalty for three offenses of unauthorized absences committed within the three-year period is dismissal.

Private respondent had committed the first two offenses of unauthorized absences in the same year. First, she did not report for work from March 19 to 29, 1989 without notice to petitioner, thus her absence was treated as unauthorized and considered her first offense for which she was penalized with suspension. Second, she again did not report for work from June 5 to 13, 1989 and when she reported for work and presented her medical certificate, it covered the period of June 5 to 8, 1989 only but she did not report for work until June 14, 1989. Petitioner’s doctor did not confirm her absences from June 11 to 13, 1989, thus, the same was considered unauthorized and her second offense for which she was penalized again with suspension. These two unauthorized absences together with her third unauthorized absences committed from June 28 to July 14, 1989 are sufficient bases for petitioner’s finding that private respondent patently abused her sick leave privileges.