Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Lazaro R. Santos, a Junior Telephone Installer for petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), was assigned to repair a telephone. He allegedly told the subscriber's wife that the repair would involve cable replacement and demanded P160.00 for the service, advising her to keep the transaction confidential. The subscriber subsequently sent a letter-complaint to PLDT. An investigation by PLDT engineers revealed the defect was a simple slash on the inside wire, easily repairable. The subscriber's wife provided a sworn statement and an affidavit ('KATUNAYAN') identifying Santos and reiterating the demand for P160.00. A confrontation was held where the subscriber and his wife reiterated their charge. Santos was then asked to explain why he should not be dismissed for demanding personal compensation. He submitted a written explanation denying the accusation. Procedural History: PLDT, convinced of Santos's misconduct, terminated his services effective October 6, 1984. Approximately three weeks after his termination, the subscriber and his wife executed affidavits of retraction. Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal legal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, ordering Santos's reinstatement with three months' back wages, relying heavily on the affidavits of retraction. The Petition: PLDT filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent Lazaro R. Santos was illegally dismissed from his employment by petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. Whether the affidavits of retraction executed by the subscribers have sufficient probative value to overturn the findings of misconduct against the private respondent; AND Whether petitioner PLDT complied with the procedural requirements for dismissal under the Labor Code. On the necessity of clearance to terminate employment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, holding that the dismissal of Lazaro R. Santos was legal and justified.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and the probative value of affidavits of retraction: The Court found the NLRC's reliance on the affidavits of retraction to be misplaced. These affidavits were executed nearly a month after the private respondent's termination and were considered by the Supreme Court as a mere afterthought, possibly executed out of compassion to help the private respondent extricate himself from the consequences of his actions. The Court reiterated its ruling in People v. Rojo and People v. Galicia that affidavits of retraction, especially when executed under such circumstances, have no probative value and should be disregarded. The Court emphasized that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow solemn testimonies and findings to be overturned by subsequent changes of mind by witnesses, which would make trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous individuals. Therefore, full faith and credit should have been given to the initial letter-complaint, sworn statement, and 'KATUNAYAN', while the affidavits of retraction should have been disregarded. The Court found the NLRC's pronouncement that the dismissal was effected without compliance with procedural requirements to be devoid of merit. The evidence presented established that the private respondent was dismissed for a just cause, specifically serious misconduct, which was the demanding of P160.00 for a repair. The Court detailed the procedural steps taken by the petitioner: a letter-complaint, an investigation confirming the minor nature of the defect, a sworn statement and 'KATUNAYAN' from the subscriber's wife, a confrontation where the charge was reiterated, and a written notice requiring the private respondent to explain his actions. The private respondent was given an opportunity to be heard and submitted a written explanation, albeit a denial without submitting the retraction affidavits until after his dismissal. The Court noted that the private respondent never requested a formal investigation. Thus, the petitioner was convinced of the misconduct and proceeded with the termination, having complied with the requirements of notice and hearing. On the compliance with procedural due process (combined with retraction issue): (See above - combined with first ratio point). On the necessity of clearance to terminate employment: The Court clarified that the requirement for clearance from the Department of Labor before effecting dismissal was no longer necessary. Article 278(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, explicitly states that clearance to terminate employment is no longer necessary, provided that the dismissal is for a just or authorized cause and that the requirements of notice under Article 284 are met. Since the amendment took effect in 1981 and the dismissal occurred in 1984, the petitioner was not bound to secure such clearance. The Court concluded that the justness of the cause for dismissal and the observance of procedural requirements were beyond dispute, and the disciplinary action was legally justified, as the employee's continuance in service was inimical to the employer's interest.
Main Doctrine
Affidavits of retraction executed after an employee's dismissal, especially when they appear to be an afterthought or motivated by compassion, may be disregarded for lack of probative value. An employer is justified in dismissing an employee for serious misconduct, provided procedural due process is observed.