Perez vs PT&T

Perez vs PT&T

 The petitioners petitioners (Perez (Perez and Doria) were were placed on preventive preventive suspension suspension for 30 days because they allegedly participated in jacking up freight costs and falsifying shipping docuents! The suspension was e"tended for #$ days twice! %fter the investigation of PT&T they were terinated which propted Perez to 'le illegal suspension and terination before before %!  %! ence present petition! % ruled in favor of the petitioners but it was reversed by *+, and later a-red by ,%! ,% upheld the disissal due to loss of con'dence of PT&T to the petitioners!

Issue: .hether or not PT&T illegally illegally suspended and disissed disissed the petitioners/ petitioners/

Held: Illegal Dismissal:  Yes.  Yes.  The , held that that respondents1 respondents1 evidence was was insu-cient insu-cient to clearly and and convincingly establish the facts fro which the loss of con'dence resulted! (2t was never proven that petitioners alone had control of or access to these docuents)! +espondents1 illegal act of disissing petitioners was aggravated by their failure to observe due process! To eet the reuireents of due process in the disissal of an eployee4 an eployer ust furnish the worker with two written notices5 (#) a written notice specifying the grounds for terination and giving to said eployee a reasonable reasonable opportunity to e"plain his side and (6) another written notice indicating that4 upon due consideration of all circustances4 grounds have been established to justify the eployer7s decision to disiss the eployee!

Illegal Suspension:  Yes.  Yes. %n eployee ay be validly suspended by the eployer for just cause provided by law! uch suspension shall only be for a period of 30 days4 after which the eployee shall either be reinstated or paid his wages during the e"tended period!

2n this case4 petitioners contended that they were not paid during the two #$8 day e"tensions4 or a total of 30 days4 of their preventive suspension! +espondents failed to adduce evidence to the contrary! Thus4 they are entitled to reinstateent with backwages and #3th onth pay! 2n this case4 however4 reinstateent is no longer possible because of the length of tie that has passed fro the date of the incident to 'nal resolution! 9ourteen years have transpired fro the tie petitioners were wrongfully disissed!  To order reinstateent at this juncture will no longer serve any prudent or practical purpose! Petitioners should be paid their separation pay in lieu of reinstateent!