G.R. No. 99030 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ELMER TAWAY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside and a new one entered directing the reinstatement of complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights with payment of two (2) years backwages, in view of complainant's conformity to such amount of backwages manifested during the conciliation conference of April 4, 1990." [6] Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that private respondent was validly dismissed for violating the company's first-come-first-serve policy when he assigned telephone facilities to DJ Sambahayan Fastfood ahead of the other applicants having higher priority and despite the absence of entrance cable facilities at Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 5. We are not convinced. An employer can terminate the services of an employee only for valid and just causes which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. [7] The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was indeed for a valid and just cause. [8] In the case at bar, petitioner failed to establish private respondent's culpability by clear and convincing evidence. It does not appear from the facts that private respondent deliberately by-passed the applications of the other tenants of Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 5 when he assigned telephone facilities to DJ Sambahayan Fastfood. The application filed by Mr. Manuel Mendoza, owner of DJ Sambahayan Fastfood, indicates that the fastfood is located in Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 3. Believing such representation, private respondent approved its application and assigned telephone facilities thereto, as telephone lines were already being installed in Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 3. The assignment and installation of telephone facilities at DJ Sambahayan Fastfood were approved by petitioner's manager, Mr. R.S. Caoyonan. There was, therefore, no intention to by-pass the application of Mr. Tomas Enriquez or those of the three other applicants as their applications show that their addresses are in Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 5 which had no entrance cable facility yet. Moreover, petitioners failed to prove that private respondent authorized the use of the entrance cable facilities of Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 3 to provide DJ Sambahayan Fastfood with a telephone line. The facts show that it was Mr. De la Torre from petitioner's I & R Department who installed the telephone line at DJ Sambahayan Fastfood. It does not appear from the facts that Mr. De la Torre coordinated with private respondent or informed him that he would use the cables assigned to Sambahayan Condominium Building No. 3 to install telephone lines at DJ Sambahayan Fastfood. Respondent NLRC, therefore, did not err in finding that private respondent was illegally dismissed. We, however, modify the decision of respondent NLRC as regards the amount of backwages to be awarded to private respondent. We ruled in the recent case of Bustamante v. NLRC [9] that the amount of backwages to be awarded to an