Facts:
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its certiorari petition and the affirmance of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rulings that found the dismissal of its employee,
the late Romeo F. Bolso, illegal. Bolso worked as an
Installer/Repairman II for PLDT from February 1982 until PLDT dismissed him on
20 July 1997. Sometime before the administrative investigation,
Samuel Mabunga, a PLDT subscriber, sold the rights to his telephone line to
Ismael Salazar for
P20,000, from which Mabunga received
P15,000 for the transfer. For the installation of the telephone line, Salazar paid
P2,500 to a PLDT installer who introduced himself as
Boy Negro, and paid another
P2,500 to the two companions of Boy Negro. On
20 May 1996, Salazar wrote PLDT complaining that Mabunga continued using the telephone line through an extension despite the transfer and requested PLDT to check the problem and cut off the extension line. On
28 June 1996, Salazar went to PLDT’s
Quality Control and Inspection Division (QCID) office and affirmed that he paid Boy Negro and his companions
P2,500 each for installing the telephone line at his residence; during the investigation, he also positively identified a photograph of Bolso as that of Boy Negro. Salazar executed a
Sinumpaang Salaysay narrating the circumstances of the installation of the illegal extension line and a
Certification stating that the person identified in the photograph was the installer who went to his house. On
29 June 1996, QCID inspected the telephone installation at Salazar’s residence and confirmed that Mabunga used the telephone line through an outside extension installed at Salazar’s house; PLDT then informed Salazar and Mabunga that it was an unofficial installation and invited them to QCID to enlighten the matter. On
23 July 1996, PLDT issued an
Inter-Office Memo requesting Bolso’s appearance, together with his immediate supervisor or union council representative, at PLDT’s Sampaloc office for investigation of Bolso’s alleged participation in the illegal installation. On
26 July 1996, Salazar and Bolso appeared for the QCID investigation; Salazar reaffirmed his earlier Sinumpaang Salaysay and
positively identified Bolso from among those present as the installer of the unofficial extension line, while Bolso denied the accusation. After the investigation, Bolso submitted what appeared to be a recantation by Salazar, claiming that Salazar did not personally know Bolso and that Bolso was not Boy Negro; the letter dated
5 August 1996 admitted that Bolso was only picked out when they faced each other during the investigation due to confusion and indigestion and expressed remorse and a belief that Salazar had inadvertently accused an innocent person. On
20 January 1997, Bolso’s union,
Manggagawang Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas, requested the withdrawal of the complaint against Bolso because the complainant allegedly failed to satisfy the standard basis for further investigation; on
10 July 1997, Bolso’s counsel demanded the immediate dismissal of the administrative case based on Salazar’s recantation and the release of benefits under PLDT’s early retirement/redundancy program. PLDT did not credit the recantation, finding that Salazar’s earlier statements established Bolso’s culpability, and terminated Bolso effective
20 June 1997 for
serious misconduct. Bolso filed with the Labor Arbiter on
15 August 1997 a complaint for
illegal dismissal,
backwages, and
damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on
6 August 1998, finding Bolso’s defense unsupported by convincing evidence and concluding that even without direct evidence that Bolso exacted money, there was substantial evidence of
serious misconduct supported by the circumstances and Salazar’s initial statements. On
28 September 1998, Bolso appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC reversed, holding that PLDT failed to prove the infraction, that Salazar’s recantation “totally established Bolso’s innocence,” and that Bolso was denied due process; it also emphasized that it was PLDT’s first charge against Bolso and that it would have been unlikely for Bolso to risk his livelihood for a “measly amount” of
P2,500. The Court of Appeals dismissed PLDT’s petition for certiorari on
27 November 2002 and denied reconsideration on
19 August 2003, sustaining the NLRC. The Court of Appeals ruled that “special circumstances” raised serious doubt as to Bolso’s accountability, treated Salazar’s recantation as a declaration against interest under
Section 38, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, found no sufficient evidence of breach attributable to Bolso, considered dismissal too harsh given his length of service and first offense, and ruled that Bolso was not afforded the kind of hearing adequate to satisfy due process. PLDT then sought review before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Whether Bolso’s dismissal for
serious misconduct was lawful for lack of
substantial evidence and denial of
due process, considering Salazar’s recantation.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: