G.R. No. 149379 ; June 15, 2006
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. HOMER IMPERIAL, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Homer Imperial, an employee of PLDT since 1985, was assigned on September 1, 1992, to drive a service vehicle for a group tasked with recovering cable wires. The group recovered 457 feet of cable. Allegedly due to a vehicle malfunction, the group’s foreman ordered the unloading of 254.3 feet of this cable at a private residence owned by a fellow PLDT employee. The cables were later retrieved by PLDT security and police. An information for qualified theft was filed against Imperial and his co-workers. Based on this criminal charge and perceived inconsistencies in the employees’ explanations for the incident, PLDT terminated Imperial’s employment on March 5, 1993. The trial court subsequently acquitted all accused of qualified theft for insufficiency of evidence.
Following his acquittal, Imperial filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was for just cause, citing loss of trust and confidence due to the inconsistent statements. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, finding the dismissal illegal. It held that the acquittal in the criminal case and the lack of substantial evidence of any dishonest act negated the existence of a just cause for termination based on loss of trust and confidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Homer Imperial was illegally dismissed.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, ruling that Imperial was illegally dismissed. For dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the breach of trust must be willful, founded on substantial evidence, and the employee must hold a position of trust. The Court found that PLDT failed to present substantial evidence of any dishonest act or willful breach by Imperial. His acquittal in the criminal case for qualified theft, due to the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, significantly weakened the premise for the administrative charge. The perceived inconsistencies in his statements regarding the vehicle trouble were insufficient to constitute substantial evidence of fraud or willful misconduct warranting dismissal. The employer’s evidence merely gave rise to suspicions, which are inadequate to satisfy the requirement of substantial proof in termination cases. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed illegal, entitling Imperial to reinstatement and backwages.