The Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s dismissal for serious misconduct was justified despite a recantation by the accusing party. The Court emphasized the importance of the initial statements made during investigations and the employee’s length of service, and that a recantation doesn’t automatically negate an earlier declaration. This decision highlights the need for employers to thoroughly investigate misconduct allegations, even when witnesses attempt to retract their statements.

Can a Retracted Statement Save Your Job? PLDT Employee’s Dismissal Examined

This case revolves around Romeo F. Bolso, an installer/repairman for PLDT, who was dismissed for allegedly accepting payment for installing an unauthorized telephone line. Bolso was accused by a PLDT subscriber, Ismael Salazar, who initially identified Bolso as the person he paid for the illegal installation. Later, Salazar recanted his statement, leading to a legal battle over the validity of Bolso’s dismissal. The central legal question is whether PLDT had just cause to terminate Bolso’s employment based on the initial accusations, despite the subsequent retraction.

The case began when Salazar complained about an illegal extension line connected to his telephone. During the investigation, Salazar identified Bolso as the installer he paid P2,500. He provided sworn statements and certifications confirming Bolso’s involvement. However, Salazar later submitted a letter stating he did not personally know Bolso and had mistakenly identified him due to confusion and anger. PLDT, however, terminated Bolso based on Salazar’s initial statements, citing serious misconduct.

The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed Bolso’s complaint for illegal dismissal. However, the NLRC reversed the decision, finding that PLDT failed to prove Bolso committed the infraction, emphasizing Salazar’s recantation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision, highlighting the special circumstances that raised doubts about Bolso’s accountability. The Court of Appeals also noted that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh given Bolso’s length of service and first offense.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, siding with PLDT. The Court analyzed whether Bolso’s dismissal for serious misconduct was lawful, referring to Article 282 of the Labor Code, which allows employers to terminate employment for just causes, including serious misconduct. Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of established rules, and implies wrongful intent. The Supreme Court emphasized that serious misconduct must be of a grave and aggravated character and connected to the employee’s work.

The Court then addressed the evidentiary standard for proving serious misconduct, stating that dismissal must be supported by **substantial evidence**. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court acknowledged that PLDT installers are prohibited from collecting personal fees for their services, and violating this rule constitutes serious misconduct.

The critical issue was whether Bolso accepted payment for installing the unauthorized telephone line. The Court reviewed Salazar’s initial statements, which narrated how he gave Bolso P2,500 for the installation. Salazar identified Bolso’s photograph and later identified him in person. The Court noted that Salazar’s statements were consistent during the initial investigation. The Court also quoted Salazar’s statement confirming he paid Bolso directly:

T25 : Ano ang gusto ninyong idagdag, ibawas o baguhin?

S : Hindi ko talaga siya kilala dahil iyong dalawang taong nauna sa kanya ang talagang may kilala sa kanya. Kilala ko lang siya sa alyas niyang “BOY NEGRO”. At nung nagbayad ako ng pera, ay siya talaga ang pinagbigyan ko, doon sa loob ng bahay ko, kasama iyong dalawa.

The Supreme Court explained that the standard of substantial evidence is met when the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that such misconduct makes them unworthy of trust.

The Court then addressed the issue of Salazar’s recantation. It cited a similar case, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, No. L- 74562, 31 July 1987, 152 SCRA 702, where the Court held that retractions are often an afterthought, executed out of compassion. Therefore, retractions have limited probative value. The Court further clarified that a retraction does not automatically negate an earlier declaration.

The Court emphasized the importance of comparing the original and new statements and applying the general rules of evidence. The Court noted that Salazar’s recantation only stated that Bolso was not “Boy Negro.” However, Salazar never expressly repudiated his earlier statement that he paid Bolso P2,500 for the installation. Thus, Salazar’s original statement remained undisputed.

Additionally, the Court pointed out that Salazar’s recantation letter was not sworn or subscribed to, and Bolso failed to offer any reason for Salazar’s initial accusation. The Court also acknowledged Bolso’s long tenure with PLDT and that this was his first offense. However, the Court stated that Bolso’s length of service aggravated his offense, referring to *Reyno v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 148105, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 660*, which held that longer service increases responsibility for compliance with company rules.

The Court also addressed Bolso’s application for early retirement benefits, noting that his plea for reinstatement conflicted with this application. Since Bolso was dismissed for a just cause, he could not avail of these benefits. Finally, the Court addressed the procedural due process issue. The Court stated that Bolso was notified of the investigation and given an opportunity to be heard. The Court quoted from the investigation transcript:

Tanong 16: Ginoong Bolso, narinig mo ba ang mga sinabi ni G. Salazar laban sa iyo. Ngunit bago ka sumagot, nais ko munang ipaalam sa iyo ang mga karapatan mo sa ilalim ng Bagong Saligang Batas. Una, ikaw ay may karapatan hindi sumagot o magsawalang kibo sa mga katanungan ko. May karapatan ka ring sumangguni muna sa isang abogado o Union Council rep na siyang pili mo upang makatulong sa pagsisiyasat na ito. Dahil lahat ng sasabihin mo ay maaari naming gamitin ebidensya laban o pabor sa iyo sa lahat ng hukuman dito sa Philipinas. Naiintindihan mo ba ang iyong mga nabanggit na karapatan?

S: Oo.

The Court found that Bolso was allowed to confront his accuser and given adequate opportunity to respond to the charges, meaning he was not denied due process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether PLDT had just cause to dismiss Romeo Bolso for serious misconduct, despite a recantation by the person who initially accused him. The Court had to determine if the initial statements were sufficient evidence for dismissal.
What constitutes serious misconduct?	Serious misconduct is improper or wrong conduct that involves the transgression of an established rule, implies wrongful intent, and is connected to the employee’s work. It must be of a grave and aggravated character, not merely trivial or unimportant.
What is the standard of substantial evidence?	Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It does not require absolute certainty, but it must be more than a mere suspicion or conjecture.
Why did the Supreme Court give less weight to the recantation?	The Supreme Court views recantations with disfavor because they can be motivated by compassion or other ulterior motives. The Court will look at the circumstances to determine which statement is more credible.
Was Romeo Bolso denied due process?	No, the Supreme Court found that Romeo Bolso was not denied due process. He was notified of the charges against him, given an opportunity to be heard, and allowed to confront his accuser.
What is the significance of Bolso’s length of service?	The Supreme Court noted that Bolso’s length of service actually aggravated his offense. Longer service increases the employee’s responsibility for knowing and complying with company rules.
What was the effect of Bolso’s application for early retirement?	The Court noted that Bolso’s application for early retirement was inconsistent with his claim for reinstatement. Since he was dismissed for just cause, he could not avail himself of the retirement benefits.
What is the practical lesson for employers?	Employers should thoroughly investigate allegations of misconduct, even if witnesses later retract their statements. They should also consider the employee’s length of service and the seriousness of the offense.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of initial statements and the employer’s right to discipline employees for serious misconduct. The decision serves as a reminder that recantations are not automatically accepted and that employees with long tenures are held to a higher standard of conduct.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. The Late Romeo F. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007