FIRST DIVISION
JESUS
E. DYCOCO, JR., G.R. No. 188271
Petitioner,
Present:
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,
- v e r
s u s - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL
CASTILLO and
PEREZ, JJ.
EQUITABLE
PCI BANK
(NOW
BANCO DE ORO),
RENE
BUENAVENTURA
AND
SILES SAMALEA,
Respondents. Promulgated:
August
16, 2010
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, C.J.:
Petitioner Jesus E. Dycoco, Jr. seeks
reconsideration of the August 26, 2009 resolution denying his petition[1]
wherein he assailed the February 16, 2009 decision and May 12, 2009 resolution
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105126.
The CA affirmed the decision and
resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Jesus
Dycoco, Jr. v. Equitable PCI Bank / Rene Buenaventura, et al., docketed as
LAC No. 01-000390-08. The NLRC, on the other hand, reversed and set aside the
July 24, 2007 decision of the labor arbiter of the Regional Arbitration Branch
No. V, Legazpi City, in RAB-V Case No. 09-00407-06 which held that petitioner
was illegally dismissed by respondents Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro),
Rene Buenaventura and Siles Samalea.
In reversing the labor arbiter, the
NLRC ruled that petitioner’s dismissal was for just cause. He was guilty of
serious misconduct, willful disobedience and gross negligence for not
performing his duty to complete the documentary requirements in the opening of
accounts pursuant to the bank’s internal procedures. This directly resulted in
the unauthorized abstraction of bank funds.
The pertinent facts are as follows.
In February 1997, petitioner was
hired by respondent bank as Assistant Manager and/or OIC Branch Head of its
Legazpi City Branch, Region V (Legazpi branch). In 2000, petitioner became
Branch Head and in September 2003, respondent bank underwent an internal
reorganization. Pursuant thereto,
petitioner became the Personal Banking Manager (PBM) of the Legazpi branch.
In June 2005, several clients of the
Legazpi branch filed complaints for alleged unauthorized abstractions of
various trust funds, treasury placements and deposits. Respondent bank promptly
commenced an investigation. Consequently,
“show cause” letters were issued to the officers of the Legazpi branch,
including Branch Center Head Glena Orogo, former Service Officer respondent
Siles Samalea, Service Officer Irene Tabuzo, Operations Officers Imelda Espiritu
and Maria Fe Gianan, Investment Clerk Carlo Quirong and the petitioner as the
PBM.
The November 14, 2005 “show cause”
letter[2]
addressed to petitioner stated the results of the investigation, as follows:
A. On the Abstraction of Trust
Placement of Client, Ma. Carolina V. Villegas
a. On 01.30.04, when you approved
the opening of PLI account for P7.5M of Ms. Villegas:
i.
You
did not require Ms. Villegas to accomplish/submit the account opening
requirements such as Revocable Trust Agreement, Investment Guidelines and Trust
Compensation Agreement.
ii.
You
did not require Ms. Villegas to sign on the LOI-Contribution for P7.5M (as
initial contribution) to acknowledge the validity and correctness of
contribution made, despite your notation “signature to follow” on the cited LOI.
b. You did not enroll in your Sales
Portal the PLI account of Ms. Ma. Carolina V. Villegas opened with an initial
placement of P7.5M on 01.30.04 upon your approval.
c. You did not secure the required
account opening documents (i.e. Revocable Trust Agreements, Investment
Guidelines, Trust Compensation Agreement) on the PLI account opened on 01.30.04
by Ms. Villegas, despite e-mail follow ups by Ms. Ma. Nelisa M.
Trajano/AO–Personal Trust and Agencies Division on 5.13.04 and 02.23.05.
d. Based on statements of branch
personnel, you prevented the BCH and her branch personnel from going to the
residence of Carlo B. Quirong to make inquiry/investigation about the Villegas
case.
B. On the Abstraction of Trust
Placement of Clients, Fr. Roberto Crisol or Benita Crisol (PLI No. 117-78825-2)
a. On 10.29.03, you did not require
Fr. Roberto Crisol or Benita Crisol to sign on the LOI-Contribution for P285K
to acknowledge the validity and correctness of contribution made, despite your
notation “signature to follow” on the cited LOI.
C. On the Abstraction of Trust
Placement of Clients, Fr. Roberto Crisol or Anna Lea Borromeo (PLI No.
117-78828-7)
a. On 10.29.06, you did not require
Fr. Roberto Crisol or Anna Lea Borromeo to sign on the LOI-Contribution for
P235K to acknowledge the validity and correctness of contribution made, despite
your notation “signature to follow” on the cited LOI.
D. On the Abstraction of Trust
Placement of Clients, Fr. Roberto Crisol or Ma. Celio Sabareza (PLI No.
117-78829-5)
a. On 7.31.03, you co-approved the
payment of spurious withdrawal for P100K from the PLI account of Fr. Roberto
Crisol or Maria Celio Sabareza:
i.
Despite
the signatures of Fr. Roberto Crisol on the LOI-Withdrawal for P100K were
forged.
ii.
Although
you did not verify the signatures of Fr. Roberto Crisol on the spurious
LOI-Withdrawal for P100K against the specimen signatures on file. Instead, you
allowed Carlo B. Quirong do the signature verification.
iii.
Without
requiring the PLI processor (Ailene C. Perfecto) to prepare Manager’s Check
under the name of Fr. Roberto Crisol or Ma. Celio Sabareza (Trustor/client) or
credit memo (CM) for client’s account as mode of payment of said PLI withdrawal
as required by policy. Instead, you approved the validation of cited withdrawal
as “miscellaneous payout”.
iv.
Allowing
Carlo B. Quirong/CSA to pay via “miscellaneous payout” the LOI-Withdrawal for
P100K instead of the teller.
E. You did not enroll in your Sales
Portal the five PLI accounts of Fr. Roberto Crisol et al. outstanding with the
branch as of 01.31.04.
F. On the Abstraction of Trust
Placements of Sps. Cesario Israel/Josephine Bandong
a. You did not immediately notify or
report the fraudulent act of Carlo B. Quirong, Sales Assistant to his superior
officer, BCH upon your knowledge of the incident on 06.15.05. The BCH could
have immediately placed under preventive suspension Carlo B. Quirong effective
06.15.05, thereby preventing the complaint of Mayor Dick Galicia, client on the
alleged withdrawal for P810K by Carlo B. Quirong on 06.16.05.
b. You did not report the Cesario
Israel/Josephine Bandong (Abstraction of CTF placement for P2,371,620.43 on
12.09.03 by Carlo Quirong) incident to Internal Audit Division (IAD) within two
working days from the date of your knowledge of the incident on 06.15.05.
xxx
As a result, the fraudulent withdrawal was
not detected/prevented exposing the Bank to financial loss of P100K.
In August 2006, respondent bank issued a
second “show cause” letter[3] to
petitioner charging him with involvement in alleged dollar-trading activities. Petitioner
was preventively suspended from September 20, 2006 to October 20, 2006.
On September 22, 2006, while petitioner
was under preventive suspension, he filed a complaint in the NLRC Regional
Arbitration Branch No. V alleging constructive dismissal and illegal suspension,
and demanding reinstatement/separation pay and payment of incentives, 13th
month pay, bonuses, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
However, on October 10, 2006, respondent
bank rendered a decision[4]
with respect to the first “show cause” letter finding petitioner guilty of
violating Articles IV (F) (Class C) (1), IV (D) (Class D) (1) and IV (E) (Class
C) (13) of the bank’s Code of Conduct, and Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code. The
penalty of dismissal was imposed on him. Petitioner was, however, exonerated
from the charge of dollar-tradingas specified in the second “show cause”
letter.
On July 24, 2007, the labor arbiter held
that petitioner was illegally dismissed. He ordered respondent bank to pay
separation pay, backwages, incentives, bonuses, 13th month pay and
attorney’s fees in the total amount of P1,147,216.00.[5]
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor
arbiter’s decision. The CA subsequently affirmed
the NLRC.
Petitioner insists that he was illegally
dismissed. We already rejected his
position but petitioner seeks reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Jurisprudence[6]
has repeatedly outlined how diligence in the banking industry should be
observed:
By
its very nature, the business of the petitioner bank is so impressed with
public trust; banks are mandated to exercise a higher degree of diligence in
the handling of its affairs than that expected of an ordinary business
enterprise. Banks handle transactions involving millions of pesos and
properties worth considerable sums of money. The banking business will thrive
only as long as it maintains the trust and confidence of its customers/clients.
Indeed, by the very nature of their work, the degree of responsibility, care
and trustworthiness expected of officials and employees of the bank is far
greater than those of ordinary officers and employees in the other business
firms. Hence, no effort must be spared by banks and their officers and
employees to ensure and preserve the trust and confidence of the general public
and its customers/clients as well as the integrity of its records and the
safety and well-being of its customers/clients while in its premises.
As the banking industry is impressed
with public interest, all bank personnel are burdened with a high level of
responsibility insofar as care and diligence in the custody and management of
funds are concerned. Petitioner
miserably failed to discharge this burden.
Petitioner violated his duties and
responsibilities as PBM when he signed and approved the subject transactions
without the necessary signatures of the concerned clients. As PBM, it was his obligation
to ensure “that all documentary requirements (were) complied with by clients
being handled and that the bank’s interest (was) at all times protected.” It was
incumbent on him to enforce “strict compliance with bank policies and internal
control procedures while maintaining the highest level of service quality.”[7]
It is significant that petitioner did
not even deny that it was he who signed, approved and facilitated the subject
transactions relating to the various abstractions committed by a bank employee.
It was an implied admission that he was the one who opened the door for the
commission of the unlawful abstractions by failing to ensure that all requirements
for the opening of accounts were complied with. This constituted gross
negligence.
As a PBM, petitioner should have
exercised much care in performing his functions. Petitioner’s failure on three
separate occasions to require clients to sign the requisite documents (a vital
and standard procedure in all banking transactions) was a clear manifestation
of serial negligence. Because of this gross negligence, Carlo Quirong,
respondent bank’s Customer Sales Assistant, was able to filch millions of pesos
from respondent bank by manipulating clients’ accounts.
Petitioner’s assertion that neither
Quirong nor any of the bank operations personnel was under his supervision and
that the day-to-day operations of his branch were the responsibility of the
Banking Center Head does not exonerate him from liability. He was duty-bound to
make certain that such documentary requirements were complied with in
accordance with respondent bank’s rules.
Gross negligence connotes “want of care
in the performance of one’s duties.”[8]
Petitioner’s failure to observe basic procedure constituted gross negligence. His
repeated failure to carefully observe his duties as PBM clearly showed utter
want of care.
After committing gross negligence,
petitioner surprisingly still expects respondent bank to retain him. Nothing can compel an employer to continue
availing of the services of an employee guilty of acts inimical to its
interests as this is a ground for loss of confidence.[9]
Petitioner’s breach of respondent bank’s policies intended to safeguard the
bank and its clients’ funds was clearly inimical to the interests of his
employer. Loss of confidence and
dismissal from employment were therefore justified.
Loss of confidence applies to situations
where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of employer’s
money or property.[10]
“If the employees are cashiers, managers, supervisors, salesmen or other
personnel occupying positions of responsibility, the employer’s loss of trust
and confidence in said employees may justify termination of their employment.”[11]
The CA was thus correct in upholding the
dismissal of petitioner.
WHEREFORE,
the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Costs against
petitioner.
No further pleadings or motions shall be
entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Chief Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, p. 365.
[3] Rollo, p. 392.
[4] Rollo, p. 414.
[5] Equivalent to 10% of the total award as computed above.
[6] United Coconut Planters Bank v. Basco, G.R. No. 142668 (2004). Citing Lim Sio Bio v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 307 (1993) and Philippine Commercial and International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 446 (2001).
[7] Rollo, p. 74.
[8] JGB and Associates, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 457 (1996).
[9] EEI v. National Labor Relations Commission, 133 SCRA 752.
[10] Azucena, Jr. C.A. Everybody’s Labor Code, 2007 Ed., p. 330.
[11] Azucena, Jr. C.A. Everybody’s Labor Code, 2007 Ed., p. 331 (Emphasis supplied).