G.R. No. L-22119 September 29, 1967
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. MELANIO SALCEDO, PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On August 8, 1958, respondents Melanio Salcedo and the Philippine Air Lines Employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint against petitioner Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) for Salcedo’s reinstatement with back salaries, damages, and attorney’s fees, alleging his dismissal on June 28, 1957, was arbitrary. PAL countered that Salcedo was dismissed for cause, having stolen ball bearings and sold them to Romualdo Abalajon, with some bearings later recovered from the Talastas Diesel Parts Store. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of Salcedo on February 20, 1961, ordering his reinstatement with back pay and allowances. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision on May 3, 1963, and dismissed the complaint. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on June 5, 1963. Before receiving notice of this denial, respondents filed an “Additional Petition” on June 11, 1963, and a “Petition for New Trial Based on the Ground of Newly Discovered Evidence” on June 15, 1963, attaching an affidavit from Romulo Matro, a PAL employee. Matro’s affidavit stated that the ball bearings found in the store were purchased from him, that they were given to him by PAL employees Jesus Cartagena and Romualdo Calderon to sell, and that he learned they were used to frame Salcedo. The Court of Appeals granted the new trial on September 28, 1963, vacating its own judgment and the trial court’s judgment, and remanding the case for reception of Matro’s testimony. PAL petitioned for review, arguing the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence of Romulo Matro’s affidavit.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution granting a new trial. The Court found that the newly discovered evidence (Matro’s affidavit) met the necessary requirements: respondents exercised reasonable diligence, as they had no means of knowing the evidence before Matro approached their counsel after the Court of Appeals’ denial of reconsideration; the affidavit’s credibility is a factual matter for the trial court to determine upon reception of the testimony; and the evidence could alter the result, as it directly contradicts the testimony of PAL’s witnesses (Abalajon, Cartagena, and Calderon) by alleging a frame-up. The Court noted that the City Attorney of Pasay had previously exonerated Salcedo, and the trial court had initially believed him, indicating the factual issue was precariously balanced. The grant of a new trial was within the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals, and such discretion was properly exercised. The resolution was affirmed.