IBM Philipines, Inc., Virgilio L. Peña and Victor V.

Reyes, petitioners
vs. NLRC and Angel D. Israel, respondents

FACTS: After sixteen (16) years of working in the IBM occupying various positions, herein private
respondent Angel D. Israel was informed by the petitioner Reyes that the former’s employment in the IBM
was to be terminated on the ground of habitual tardiness and absenteeism. Private respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the DOLE claiming he was not given the opportunity to be heard and
that he was summarily dismissed from employment based on charges which had not been duly proven. On
the other hand, petitioners alleged that the private respondent was constantly told of his poor attendance
record and inefficiency through the company’s internal electronic mail (e-mail) system which allows
paperless or telematic communication among IBM personnel in the company offices here and abroad.
Attached to petitioners’ position paper were copies of printouts of alleged computers entries or messages
sent by petitioner Reyes to private respondent through IBM’s internal computer system. Through these
computer print-outs petitioners sought to prove that private respondent was sufficiently notified of the
charges against him.

The labor arbiter rendered decision finding private respondent to have been terminated for cause and
accordingly dismissing the complaint. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC which reversed the labor
arbiter’s decision and found private respondent’s dismissal illegal. The NLRC ruled that the computer print-
outs which petitioners presented in evidence to prove that private respondent’s office was poor were
insufficient to show that the latter was guilty of habitual absences and tardiness. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the unidentified or unauthenticated computer print-outs submitted by the
petitioners are admissible in evidence that would justify the private respondent’s dismissal.

HELD: No, it must be identified and/or authenticated. The Supreme Court said that the computer print-
outs, which constitute the only evidence or petitioner, afford no assurance of their authenticity because
they are unsigned. The decisions of this Court, while adhering to a 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.

Not one of the 18 print-out copies submitted by the petitioners was ever signed, either by the sender or
the receiver. There is thus no guarantee that the message sent was the same message received. As the
Solicitor General pointed out, the messages were transmitted to and received not by the private respondent
himself but his computer. Neither were the print-outs certified or authenticated by any company official
who could properly attest that these came from IBM’s computer system or that the data stored in the
system were not and/or could not have been tampered with before the same were printed out. It is
noteworthy that the computer unit and system in which the contents of the print-outs were stored were in
the exclusive possession and control of petitioner since after private respondent was served his termination
letter, he had no more access to his computer.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the NLRC.