Millares v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edgardo D. Millares (petitioner) was employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. (PLDT) as a junior cable splicer. On August 8, 1995, PLDT received a complaint from Celestina Ignacio alleging that petitioner promised to install a telephone line for P3,800.00 on May 10, 1995, but failed to do so and refused to return the amount. Petitioner initially denied the allegations but later admitted the offense and promised to repay. PLDT issued two Inter-Office Memoranda (IOMs) charging him with willful violation of company rules, but he refused to submit a written explanation. Petitioner subsequently paid Celestina Ignacio P3,800.00, and she executed a retraction stating she was forced to file the complaint when he failed to pay a loan. PLDT found petitioner guilty of extortion and serious misconduct and dismissed him effective July 19, 1996. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against PLDT and its manager, Ambrosio Hugo. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding him illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with backwages and benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and affirming his dismissal, holding that the retraction was an afterthought and that due process was observed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the dismissal and that petitioner was afforded due process. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that there was no substantial evidence to support his dismissal, that the retraction of Celestina Ignacio was disregarded, and that he was deprived of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether there is substantial evidence to support petitioner's dismissal for serious misconduct. Whether the retraction of the complainant, Celestina Ignacio, should have been given weight. Whether petitioner was deprived of due process.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Petitioner's dismissal from the service is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial evidence for serious misconduct: The Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner committed serious misconduct. Substantial evidence is defined as such proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his participation renders him unworthy of trust and confidence. Petitioner's act of soliciting P3,800.00 from a prospective subscriber for telephone installation, which constitutes extortion and serious misconduct, was proven by the complainant's initial report and testimony. This misconduct violated PLDT's rules and regulations and justified the loss of trust and confidence, a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The employer has the right to protect itself against employees whose continued employment is detrimental to its interests. On the issue of the complainant's retraction: The Court affirmed the appellate court's rejection of Celestina Ignacio's retraction. Retractions are generally viewed with suspicion by courts because they can easily be obtained through intimidation or monetary consideration. The records showed that Ignacio retracted her complaint only after petitioner paid her the P3,800.00. This timing indicated that the retraction was an afterthought, possibly motivated by the repayment, and did not negate her earlier declaration of the offense. The NLRC correctly considered the investigation report based on her initial complaint as more credible than the belated retraction. On the issue of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. Procedural due process requires the employer to provide the employee with two notices: one apprising the employee of the charges and another informing them of the employer's decision. In this case, PLDT issued two Inter-Office Memoranda (IOMs) dated August 28, 1995, and September 6, 1995, which detailed the complaint against petitioner and directed him to submit a written explanation. Although petitioner refused to honor these notices and remained obstinate, the issuance of these memoranda demonstrated that he was apprised of the accusations and given an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated that due process does not necessitate an actual hearing but merely an opportunity to be heard.
Main Doctrine
An employee's dismissal for serious misconduct, such as soliciting money from a prospective subscriber for telephone installation, is valid if supported by substantial evidence, even if the subscriber later retracts her complaint, especially if the retraction occurs after payment and appears to be an afterthought. The employer must provide due process by issuing notices apprising the employee of the charges and the decision.