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”