Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Thirteen regular employees of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) were arrested in February 1979 based on an Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) issued by the Minister of National Defense, suspected of participating in a "telehygienic" racket. The employees were detained at Camp Crame until April 27, 1979. On May 24, 1979, PLDT informed the employees of their preventive suspension leading to dismissal, effective from their arrest dates. Three days after the employees reported for work but were denied admission, PLDT filed an application for clearance to dismiss them, and subsequently, the employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: Labor Arbiter Lacandola S. Leaño denied PLDT's application for clearance to dismiss the employees and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. The Petition: PLDT questioned the NLRC's decision, arguing that it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. PLDT contended that the arrest and detention were based on clear and convincing evidence, that the racket ceased upon the employees' incarceration, and that their reinstatement would disturb industrial harmony due to PLDT's loss of trust and confidence, which is a valid ground for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the private respondents was justified on the grounds of serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the decision of the NLRC is affirmed, with the modification that the backwages to be paid to the private respondents shall be limited to two years without deduction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the dismissal was justified on the grounds of serious misconduct and willful breach of trust: The Court held that while serious misconduct and willful breach of trust are valid grounds for dismissal under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the record was bereft of any competent showing that the private respondents acted in connivance with the perpetrators or participated in the "telehygienic" racket. The Labor Arbiter noted that PLDT's basis for suspension and dismissal was solely the arrest and detention by military authorities, without conducting its own investigation. Furthermore, the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal's Office found no case against the employees for malicious mischief and damage and obstruction to means of communication, despite their detention and incarceration for approximately three months. The Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden of proving the justness of the dismissal, and mere suspicion or reliance on the actions of military authorities is insufficient. The failure of PLDT to substantiate its charge meant that the grounds for dismissal were not proven. On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, which correctly found that PLDT failed to substantiate its charges against the private respondents. The constitutional right to security of tenure of the private respondents was recognized, and their termination was not based on just and valid causes. The Court reiterated that employers must establish grounds for dismissal with competent evidence. Since PLDT failed to prove the alleged misconduct or breach of trust, the decision ordering reinstatement and backwages was proper. The Court, however, modified the award of backwages to two years without deduction, considering the length of time the employees had been laid off and the possibility of their engaging in other gainful activities.
Main Doctrine
An employer cannot dismiss employees based solely on their arrest and detention by military authorities without conducting its own investigation to prove serious misconduct or willful breach of trust, as the burden of proof lies with the employer.