G.R. No. 74562. July 31, 1987
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LAZARO R. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for
review on certiorari of the April 30, 1986 Decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission in Case No. NLRC-NCR-2-636-85 entitled Lazaro R.
Santos v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, reversing the July 16,
1985 Decision of the Labor Arbiter by reinstating Lazaro R. Santos with three
(3) months back wages.
On March 28, 1983, herein
private respondent was employed by the herein petitioner as a Junior Telephone
Installer with a monthly salary of P810.00 plus P350.00 monthly
living allowance. His duties, among other
things, were to install and repair telephones.
On May 20, 1984, private respondent was assigned to repair
telephone No. 50-34-06 installed at 1639 Neptune Street, Fabie Estate, Paco,
Manila, subscribed by Mr. Remigio Perez.
After inspecting the telephone wirings, respondent allegedly told Mrs.
Remedios Perez that it would take time to repair the telephone since the defect
involves cable replacement. When asked
by Mrs. Remedios Perez how the cable can be repaired, he answered that there
are personnel duly assigned to work on cables but expressed willingness to make
the repair himself provided he is paid P160.00 for cable replacement and
service charges. Unable to decide for
herself, Mrs. Remedios Perez requested respondent to come back the next day at
7:00 p.m., but as it was beyond private respondent’s
office hours, the latter gave Mrs. Perez his telephone number with the
advice that he could be contacted between 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. and that such
transaction should not be divulged to anybody because it is confidential.
Subsequently, Mr. Remigio Perez sent a letter complaint dated May
24, 1984 to the petitioner denouncing respondent for demanding P160.00 from his
daughter-in-law, Mrs. Remedios Perez, for the immediate repair of their
telephone. This prompted the petitioner
to dispatch Engineers Melanio Poce and Fidel Paulino to conduct an on the spot
inspection of telephone No. 50-34-06 and
it was ascertained that the real trouble was a slash on the portion of the
inside wire which was easily restored by connecting the jumper wire to the
terminal and by changing a portion of the inside wire.
Mrs. Remedios Perez appeared before petitioner’s Quality Control
and Inspection Department (QCID) in the afternoon of May 24, 1984 and gave a
sworn statement pointing to the respondent as the person who demanded P160.00
from her for cable replacement and service charge in connection with the repair
of telephone No. 50-34-06; and executed a “KATUNAYAN” dated May 24,
1984 where she positively identified respondent as the person who demanded
P160.00 for repair of their telephone.
On May 29, 1984, a confrontation among private respondent, Mrs.
Remedios Perez, Mr. Reynaldo Perez and Mr. Rufino dela Cruz was conducted and
during the confrontation, Mr. and Mrs. Reynaldo Perez reiterated that
respondent demanded P160.00 for the repair of their telephone. Subsequently, Mr. Nicanor Sacdalan, petitioner’s
OPSIM I Manager, sent a letter dated July 9, 1984 to respondent requiring the
latter to explain within 72 hours from receipt thereof why he should not be dismissed
from the service for demanding personal compensation for services rendered to
the subscriber in connection with his telephone. In reply thereto, respondent submitted a
written explantion dated July 13, 1984 denying the accusation against
him. However, petitioner having been
convinced that respondent committed the offense imputed against him, terminated
the services of the latter effective October 6, 1984. But three (3) weeks after petitioner had terminated the services of respondent,
Messrs. Remigio Perez and Reynaldo Perez, and Mrs. Remedios Perez executed
affidavits of retraction dated November 2, 1984, November 12, 1984 and November
8, 1984, respectively.
On February 26, 1985, private respondent filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner before the Arbitration Branch of the
National Labor Relations Commission, docketed therein as NLRC-NCR-2- 636-85
(Rollo, pp. 2-14).
In a Decision dated July 16, 1985, Labor Arbiter Bienvenido
Hernandez dismissed the complaint for lack of merit (Ibid., pp.
16-22). The dispositive portion of the
said Decision, reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered holding and adjudging
complainant’s dismissal from the service of respondent legal and must be, as it
is hereby sustained. The dismissal of
complainant should therefore receive the seal of approval by this Office. The case is dismissed for lack of merit with
prejudice.
“SO ORDERED.”
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission in a Decision
dated April 30, 1986, reversed the Labor Arbiter (Rollo, pp. 23-25). The dispositive portion of which, reads:
“WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby directed to reinstate
complainant Lazaro R. Santos with three (3) months back wages within ten (10)
days from finality thereof.
“SO ORDERED.”
Hence, the present
petition (Ibid., pp. 2-14).
The Second Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated June 2,
1986, resolved to require the respondents to comment; and to issue a temporary
restraining order (Ibid., p. 26).
In compliance with the above-said Resolution, private respondent
filed his Comment on June 20, 1986 (Ibid., pp. 32-34); while public
respondent filed its Comment on September 25, 1986 (Ibid., pp. 45-53).
Petitioner filed its
Reply on November 24, 1986 (Rollo, pp. 58-63) in compliance with the Resolution
of October 15, 1986 (Ibid., p. 55).
The petition was given due course in the Resolution of February
9, 1987 and the parties were required to file their respective memoranda (Ibid.,
p. 64).
On March 2, 1987, public respondent, through counsel, filed a
Manifestation and Motion praying that its Comment of September 19, 1987 be
considered as its memorandum (Ibid., pp. 67-68).
On March 6, 1987, private respondent filed his Memorandum (Ibid.,
pp. 69-73) while petitioner filed its Memorandum on April 1, 1987 (Ibid.,
pp. 77-78).
The sole issue in this
case is –
WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM HIS
EMPLOYMENT BY PETITIONER.
The instant petition is
impressed with merit.
NLRC, in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent with
three (3) months back wages, relied solely on the affidavits of retraction of
Mr. Remigio Perez, Mr. Reynaldo Perez and Mrs. Remedios Perez, which were
executed nearly one (1) month after petitioner terminated private respondent’s
services.
NLRC’s pronouncement was to the effect that what transpired
between private respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Reynaldo Perez was a simple case of
misunderstanding; that the said spouses overly reacted by the frequent trouble
in their telephone line and the failure of private respondent to immediately
bring the same to its normal operation, so
that, in view of the fact that the charge was not true, private
respondent’s detractors executed the affidavits of retraction. On the whole, NLRC found private respondent’s
discharge to be wihtout a solid foundation.
After a careful review of the records, it appears more reasonable
to believe that the affidavits of retraction were, as claimed by petitioner, a
mere afterthought, executed out of compassion to enable private respondent to
extricate himself from the consequence of his malfeasance. As such, this Court ruled in People v. Rojo,
that said affidavits have no probative value (114 SCRA 304, May 31, 1982).
More specifically, in the case of People v. Galicia (123 SCRA
556, July 25, 1983, citing the case of People v. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515), this
Court in sustaining the action of the
lower court in brushing aside the affidavit of retraction executed by
complaining witness, ruled:
“x x x it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject
testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the
witnesses who had given them later on changed their mind for one reason or
another, for such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the
investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.”
Accordingly, full faith and credit should have been given to the
letter-complaint of Mr. Remigio Perez, to the sworn statement of Mr. Reynaldo
Perez and Mrs. Remedios Perez, and the “KATUNAYAN” executed by Mrs.
Remedios Perez. Conversely, their
affidavits of retraction should have been disregarded.
The other pronouncement of public respondent that private
respondent’s dismissal from his employment was effected without petitioner
complying with the provisions of Sections 1, 2 and 5 of Rule XIV of the Rules
implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, is likewise devoid of merit. Said Rule provides:
“SEC. 1. Security of
tenure and due process. – No worker
shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and
after due process.
“Sec. 2. Notice of
Dismissal. – Any employer who seeks to
dismiss a worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts
or omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal. In case of abandonment of work, the notice
shall be served at the worker’s last known address.
xxx xxx xxx.
“Sec. 5. Answer and hearing. – The worker may answer the allegations
stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable period
from receipt of such notice. The
employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desire.”
From the evidence presented it was established that private respondent
was dismissed from the service for a just cause – he willfully committed a
serious act of misconduct by demanding P160.00 for the repair of telephone No.
56-34-06. Among others, it was shown
that the letter-complaint of Mr. Remigio Perez was followed by an
investigation conducted by Engineers Melanio Poce and Fidel Paulino who
ascertained that the trouble was a mere slash on the portion of the inside
wire, contrary to private respondent’s assertion that it was cable trouble
necessitating cable replacement and other expenses. Subsequently, Mrs. Remedios Perez appeared
before petitioner’s Quality Control and Inspection Department in the afternoon
of May 24, 1984 and gave a sworn statement pointing to the private respondent
as the person who demanded P160.00 from her for cable replacement and service
charge. She executed further a
“KATUNAYAN” dated May 24, 1984 where she positively identified
respondent as the person who demanded P160.00 for the repair of their
telephone. Still later on May 29, 1984,
it was followed by a confrontation among private respondent, Mrs. Remedios
Perez, Reynaldo Perez and Mr. Rufino dela Cruz wherein Mr. and Mrs. Reynaldo
Perez reiterated their charge against private respondent. Finally, giving private respondent his chance
to be heard, Mr. Nicanor Sacdalan, petitioner’s OPSIM I Manager, sent a letter
dated July 9, 1984 to the respondent requiring him to explain within 72 hours
from receipt thereof why he should not be dismissed from the service for
demanding personal compensation for service rendered to the subscriber in
connection with the latter’s telephone, to which private respondent in a
letter dated July 13, 1984, merely denied the accusation without submitting the
affidavits of retraction in question until much later, after he was dismissed
from the service.
Moreover, he never requested for a formal investigation; so that
petitioner, convinced that private respondent committed the offense imputed
against him, terminated his services effective October 16, 1984.
It is thus apparent, that the justness of the cause of the
dismissal as well as compliance with procedural requirements, is beyond
dispute. The disciplinary action of
dismissal against private respondent is legally justified considering that his
continuance in the service is patently inimical to the interest of the
petitioner. As held by this Court, an
employer cannot be legally compelled to continue with the employment of a
person guilty of malfeasance (National Service Corporation v. Leogardo Jr., 130
SCRA 502, July 20, 1984). Reinstatement
of an employee dismissed due to breach of trust and confidence would be
oppression (University of the East v. NLRC, 140 SCRA 296, November 22, 1985).
Moreover, the alleged illegality of private respondent’s dismissal
because of petitioner’s failure to secure clearance from the Department of
Labor before effecting his dismissal, no longer holds true in this case.
Article 278 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended
by Sections 13 and 14, Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, now provides:
“Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of
tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just or
authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under
Article 284 of this Code, Clearance To Terminate employment shall no longer be
necessary.”
As the above-mentioned
amendment took effect on August 21, 1981, and private respondent’s dismissal
from the service was on October 16, 1984, it is clear that petitioner is no longer
bound to secure clearance from the Department of Labor before it can validly
dismiss private respondent.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the April 30, 1986 Decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission is hereby REVERSED and the July 16, 1985
Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.