G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LETTIE P. CORPUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Lettie Corpuz was employed as a traffic operator at the Manila International Traffic Division (MITD) of petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) from September 19, 1978, until her dismissal on June 17, 1989. Her primary task was to facilitate international calls. During a strike in December 1987, supervisors handling the operators’ duties discovered two requests for overseas calls from the same calling number (98-68-16), which failed tone verification. An investigation by the Quality Control Inspection Department (QCID) revealed that this number had been temporarily disconnected on June 10, 1987, and permanently on September 24, 1987, yet 439 overseas calls were made through it between May and November 1987. A microfiche re-run showed that respondent Corpuz handled 56 (12.8%) of these 439 calls. Of these, she completed one call on May 23, 1987, and 34 calls after the disconnection, 10 of which were done without the requisite tone verification or call-back procedure. She also made several personal calls to other numbers, including her home phone. Based on these findings, PLDT, alleging serious misconduct and breach of trust, directed Corpuz to explain the infraction and, after investigation, terminated her employment. Corpuz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision in toto. PLDT’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that the dismissal of Lettie P. Corpuz was illegal due to petitioner PLDT’s failure to prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the NLRC decision. The Court held that the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal is for a just cause. Petitioner PLDT failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove that private respondent Corpuz was guilty of serious misconduct or breach of trust warranting dismissal. The evidence presented—primarily the higher percentage of calls handled by Corpuz from the disconnected number and the completion of some calls without proper verification—was deemed insufficient, conjectural, and speculative. The Court noted that other operators had similar experiences with calls from disconnected lines, and lapses in PLDT’s own operational aspects made the irregularity possible. The dismissal, premised on mere suspicions, did not meet the required standard of clearly established facts. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor and security of tenure, and that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of labor laws shall be resolved in favor of labor. The twin requirements of notice and hearing, while complied with procedurally, were rendered ineffectual due to the lack of valid substantive grounds for termination.