Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
ELMER LOPEZ, Petitioner,
- versus - KEPPEL
BANK INC.,
MANUEL BOSANO III and STEFAN
TONG WAI MUN, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 176800
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION, PEREZ,
SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: September 5, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We
resolve the present petition for review on certiorari[1]
seeking the nullification of the decision[2]
and the resolution[3] of the
Court of Appeals (CA), dated
The Antecedents
The
facts, as set out in the assailed CA decision, are summarized below.
Petitioner
Elmer Lopez was the Branch Manager of the respondent Keppel Bank Philippines,
Inc. (bank) in
By
notice dated August 12, 2003,[4]
the bank asked Lopez to explain in writing why he should not be disciplined for
issuing, without authority, two purchase
orders (POs) for the Hertz account
amounting to a total of P6,493,000.00, representing the purchase price
of 13 Suzuki Bravo and two Nissan Exalta vehicles.
Lopez
submitted his written explanation on the same day,[5]
but the bank refused to give it credit. Through respondents Manuel Bosano III
(Vice-President and Head of Retail Banking Division/Consumer Banking Division) and
Stefan Tong Wai Mun (Vice-President/Comptroller), the bank terminated Lopezs
employment effective immediately.[6]
Lopez
asked the bank for reconsideration.[7] In
response, the bank, through the respondent officers, met with Lopez at its
headquarters in Cubao,
Lopez
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against the bank,
Bosano and Tong.
The Compulsory Arbitration
Proceedings
Lopez
alleged before the labor arbiter that he issued the POs as part of his strategy
to enhance the banks business, in line with his duty as branch manager to promote
the growth of the bank. He claimed that the bank honored the first P1.8M from which the bank derived an income
of P142,000.00. He added that the second
For
its part, the bank denied approving the first
In
a decision dated P392,000.00, moral and exemplary damages of P8M,
and P550,000.00 the purchase price of a Toyota Revo which Lopez
allegedly brought over from his stint with Global Bank (now Metrobank). The labor
arbiter found that contrary to the banks claim, the evidence showed that Lopez
had been issuing POs which the bank had paid, including the first of the two
POs that led to his dismissal.[10]
On
appeal by the bank, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a decision on
The CA Decision
On
Lopez
moved for, but failed to obtain, a reconsideration of the CA decision. The CA denied
the motion on
The Case for Lopez
Through
the present petition,[15]
the reply to the banks comment dated February 11, 2008,[16] and
the memorandum dated September 22, 2008,[17] Lopez
entreats the Court to nullify the CA decision, contending that the CA erred in:
(1) not ruling that the banks appeal with the NLRC should have been dismissed
on the ground of non-perfection; and (2) affirming the decision of the NLRC
that he was dismissed for a just cause (loss of trust and confidence) and that
he was afforded due process.
Lopez
argues, with respect to the first assignment of error, that the bank failed to
comply with Sections 4 and 6, Rule VI, of the 2002 Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC.[18]
He points out that the bank did not file a notice of appeal together with its
memorandum of appeal, which in turn was not supported by a certificate of
non-forum shopping; and neither did the bank furnish him, as appellee, a
certified copy of the appeal bond.
On
the substantive aspect of the case, Lopez posits that the bank failed to
justify his dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. He insists
that, as branch manager, he had the authority to issue POs as in fact he issued
several of them in the past, which POs were honored and paid by the bank. The
labor arbiter properly relied on the past transactions in his decision. These
included, he reiterates, the first P142,000.00). He maintains that the bank failed to
substantiate its position that he was not authorized to issue the POs. He adds
that the banks claim that his issuance of the POs exposed the bank to
financial loss is a lame excuse to justify the termination of his employment.
Lopez
argues that his dismissal was a mere afterthought on the part of the bank
management, particularly Bosano, to cover up its embarrassment when he (Lopez) made
inquiries and discovered that Hertzs James Puyat Concepcion had no pending
court cases and was therefore credit worthy. He adds that assuming that he did
not have the authority to issue POs, still, he cannot be held guilty of willful
disobedience; even if he had been guilty, dismissal was a very harsh penalty.
Finally,
Lopez submits that the bank failed to accord him due process because the bank
did not give him the opportunity to prepare for his defense. He points out that his written explanation (dated
While
Lopez believes his dismissal to be illegal, he does not seek reinstatement due
to the antagonism that has developed between him, and the bank and its officers,
due to the present case. He only asks for separation pay of one month pay for
every year of service, full backwages, allowances and other benefits.
Additionally, he prays for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys
fees, to compensate him for a dismissal that was attended by bad faith and
effected in a wanton, oppressive and malevolent manner.
The Case for the Bank and its
Officers
Through
its comment to the petition[21]
and memorandum,[22] the
bank submits that the CA committed no reversible error in denying Lopezs
petition for certiorari, and in
affirming the ruling of the NLRC that Lopez was dismissed for a just cause and
after due process.
The
bank is puzzled why Lopez is standing firm on his position that he did nothing
wrong when he issued the questioned POs despite the express directive not to
proceed with the Hertz loan application unless its adverse credit investigation
report is explained to the banks credit committee. It posits that no bank
would gamble to maintain as branch manager a person who dares to supplant a
major decision of the banks top leadership with his personal decision. It
argues that in this situation, the law (Labor Code) provides protection to the
employer through its management prerogative rights and the right to dismiss employees
on just and valid grounds.
The
bank refutes Lopezs contention that there was no willful disobedience that
warranted his dismissal. It points out that there was an order for him not to
proceed with the Hertz loan application. The order was very reasonable as it is
the standard policy of every bank to conduct an investigation on the credit
worthiness of any loan applicant. Since it appeared from the investigation of
its credit committee that James Puyat Concepcion of Hertz had various court
cases, it was only proper for the bank to put on hold the loan application of
Hertz until the adverse finding could be cleared. It insists that Lopez willfully and knowingly
disobeyed this order.
Further,
the bank questions Lopezs submission, through a supplemental addendum to his position
paper, of evidence that it honored and paid POs issued by Lopez in the past. It
maintains that it was not furnished a copy of this submission; hence, it was
unable to controvert this evidence.
On
the procedural due process issue, the bank denies Lopezs allegation that he
was not given the opportunity to defend himself. It points out that both the
NLRC and the CA confirmed that Lopez was not deprived the opportunity to be
heard; the opportunity commenced with: (1) the notice for him to explain his
side regarding his unauthorized issuance of POs; (2) the notice of his
termination from employment; and (3) the hearing called in response to his
motion for reconsideration where he was assisted by his lawyer and his soldier
friend.
The Courts Ruling
The procedural issue
Lopez
faults the CA for not ruling that the banks appeal to the NLRC should have
been dismissed for non-perfection. He argues that no notice of appeal
accompanied the memorandum of appeal; neither was there a certificate of
non-forum shopping nor any copy furnished to him of the certified true copy of
the appeal bond.
The
procedural question is a non-issue. Lopez did not raise it before the CA; in
fact, he challenged the NLRC decision of
The merits of the case
On
the substantive aspect of the case, we note that Lopez was dismissed from the
service by reason of loss of trust and confidence, a just cause for an employees
dismissal under the law.[24]
Lopez insists though that the act which triggered the dismissal action does not
justify his separation from the service.
Is Lopez liable for loss
of trust and confidence for issuing the two disputed POs?
The
right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employee is a recognized
prerogative of management; an employer cannot be compelled to continue employing
one who has been guilty of acts inimical to its interests. When this happens,
the employer can dismiss the employee for loss of confidence.[25]
At
the same time, loss of confidence as a just cause of dismissal was never intended
to provide employers with a blank check for terminating employment. Loss of
confidence should ideally apply only (1) to cases involving employees occupying
positions of trust and confidence, or (2) to situations where the employee is
routinely charged with the care and custody of the employers money or
property. To the first class belong managerial employees, i.e., those vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down
management polices and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees, or effectively recommend such
managerial actions. To the second class belong cashiers, auditors, property
custodians, or those who, in the normal and routine exercise of their
functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property.[26]
As
branch manager, Lopez clearly occupies a position of trust. His hold on his
position and his stay in the service depend on the employers trust and
confidence in him and on his managerial services.[27] According to the bank, Lopez betrayed this
trust and confidence when he issued the subject POs without authority and despite
the express directive to put the clients application on hold. In response, Lopez insists that he had sufficient
authority to act as he did, as this authority is inherent in his position as
bank manager. He points to his record in
the past when he issued POs which were honored and paid by the bank and which
constituted the arbiters overwhelming evidence[28]
in support of the finding that complainants dismissal from work was without
just cause, hence, illegal.[29]
We disagree with Lopezs contention.
Despite evidence of his past exercise of authority (as found by the labor
arbiter), we cannot disregard evidence showing that in August 2003, the bank specifically
instructed Lopez not to proceed with the Hertz loan application because of the negative
credit rating issued by the banks credit committee. We find it undisputed that
Lopez processed the loan despite the adverse credit rating. In fact, he
admitted that he overlooked the control aspects of the transaction as far as
the bank was concerned because of his eagerness to get a bigger share of the
market.[30]
Lopezs
good intentions, assuming them to be true, are beside the point for,
ultimately, what comes out is his defiance of a direct order of the bank on a
matter of business judgment. He went over the heads of the bank officers,
including the credit committee, when, based on inquiries he made on his own
regarding the credit worthiness of James Puyat Concepcion, he simply proceeded
to act on the basis of his own judgment. Evident in his written explanation[31] was
his failure to inform the credit committee of his own efforts to check on the
committees adverse findings against Hertz and his independent action based
solely on his own authority.
As a bank official, the petitioner
must have been aware that it is basic in every sound management that people
under ones supervision and direction are bound to follow instructions or to
inform their superior of what is going on in their respective areas of concern,
especially regarding matters of vital interest to the enterprise. Under these
facts, we find it undisputed that Lopez disobeyed the banks directive to put
the Hertz loan application on hold, and did not wait until its negative credit
rating was cleared before proceeding to act. That he might have been proven
right is immaterial. Neither does the submission that the bank honored and paid
the first
In
Nokom v. NLRC,[32]
we reiterated the guidelines for the application of loss of confidence as
follows: (1) loss of confidence, should not be simulated; (2) it should not be
used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (3)
it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary; and (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier
action taken in bad faith.
Under
the circumstances of this case, we are convinced that the bank was justified in
terminating Lopezs employment by reason of loss of trust and confidence. He admitted
issuing the two POs, claiming merely that he had the requisite authority. He could
not present any proof in this regard, however, except to say that it was part
of his inherent duty as bank manager. He also claimed that the bank acquiesced
to the issuance of the POs as it paid the first
The due process issue
As
the NLRC and the CA did, we find Lopez to have been afforded due process when
he was dismissed. He was given the required notices. More importantly, he was
actually given the opportunity to be heard; when he moved for reconsideration
of the banks decision to terminate his employment, it scheduled a hearing
where he appeared together with his lawyer and a military man. This was an
opportunity to be heard that the law recognizes.
In
fine, we find no merit in the petition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
hereby DENY the petition for lack of
merit. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner
Elmer Lopez.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
*
Designated as additional Member vice Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes per
Special Order No. 1066 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-35; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Ibid.
[12]
[13] Supra note 2.
[14] Supra note 3.
[15] Supra note 1.
[16] Rollo, pp. 263-266.
[17]
[18] Now 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
[19] Supra note 5.
[20] Supra note 4.
[21] Rollo, pp. 205-228.
[22]
[23] Supra note 10.
[24] LABOR CODE, Article 282(c).
[25] Cesario Alverio Azucena, Jr., The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Volume II, Sixth Edition (2007), p. 752 citing Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. NLRC, 236 Phil. 714 (1987).
[26] Mabeza v. NLRC, 338 Phil. 386 (1997).
[27] International Harvester Macleod, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 233 Phil. 655 (1987).
[28] Supra note 10.
[29]
[30] Supra note 5.
[31] Ibid.
[32] 390 Phil. 1228 (2000).