G.R. No. 159701 ; August 17, 2007
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE LATE ROMEO F. BOLSO, represented by his heirs, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Romeo Bolso, an Installer/Repairman II for PLDT, was dismissed on July 20, 1997, for alleged serious misconduct. The charge stemmed from an incident where subscriber Ismael Salazar paid ₱5,000 for the installation of a telephone line transferred from Samuel Mabunga. Salazar initially identified Bolso from a photograph and in a live lineup as “Boy Negro,” the installer who received the payment, and executed sworn statements to this effect. PLDT’s investigation confirmed the installation was unofficial. However, during the proceedings, Salazar submitted a handwritten recantation dated August 5, 1996, stating he did not know Bolso, had identified him only due to confusion and anger, and that Bolso was not “Boy Negro.” Bolso’s union subsequently requested the complaint’s withdrawal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Bolso’s complaint for illegal dismissal, giving weight to Salazar’s initial identification and finding the recantation unconvincing. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, ruling the recantation “totally established Bolso’s innocence” and that PLDT failed to prove the infraction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. PLDT elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the recantation was unreliable and that substantial evidence supported the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision that PLDT failed to establish by substantial evidence that Bolso committed serious misconduct warranting his dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling hinged on the principle that in dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving the validity of the termination by substantial evidence. The Court found PLDT’s evidence insufficient to meet this standard. Salazar’s recantation, which was voluntarily executed in a language known to him, directly vitiated his prior identification of Bolso. The Court emphasized that retractions are viewed with suspicion but can be considered when, as here, the original testimony is itself uncorroborated. PLDT’s case rested almost entirely on Salazar’s since-recanted statements, with no other independent evidence directly linking Bolso to the illegal installation or the receipt of money. The claim that Bolso would risk his livelihood for ₱2,500 was deemed speculative. Consequently, without substantial evidence of the alleged misconduct, Bolso’s dismissal was illegal. The Court upheld the award of reinstatement and backwages, noting that the loss of trust and confidence must be founded on actual breach duly proven by the employer, which PLDT failed to do.