G.R. No. 170542-43 - Aboc vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.

Antonio A. Aboc was employed by Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) as a loans clerk beginning on August 29, 1988.
Aboc’s performance was described as highly satisfactory, earning him merit increases and promotions over a nine-year period, during which his employment record remained unblemished.
He served as the Regional Operations Coordinator in Cebu City with a monthly salary of P11,980.00.

On January 29, 1998, Metrobank issued an inter-office letter requiring Aboc to explain his involvement in lending activities conducted by his immediate supervisor, Branch Manager Wynster Y. Chua.
Aboc responded on February 6, 1998, acknowledging that although he had performed certain tasks for Chua in connection with his lending business, his participation was limited to ministerial acts, such as preparing deposit/withdrawal slips and typing statements of accounts.
Aboc claimed he was compelled to act due to Chua’s influence and his personal “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude), characterizing himself as an “unwilling participant.”
Notably, Chua later sent a letter absolving Aboc of any responsibility, yet Metrobank proceeded with disciplinary measures.

Metrobank alleged that in November 1995, Aboc, along with Chua, Judith Eva Cabrido, and Arthur Arcepi, organized a credit union called Cebu North Road Investment (CNRI) without securing prior approval from Metrobank’s head office.
The CNRI engaged in lending and investment activities not only among Metrobank employees but also among its clients, and operated without registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
On August 13, 1996, it was further disclosed that Aboc and his companions created another credit union, First Fund Access (FFA), which also opened accounts with Metrobank under fictitious names.
Aboc was found to have actively solicited investors, induced clients to withdraw funds from Metrobank, and signed documents such as trust receipts, actions that directly competed with the bank’s primary business.

An investigation by Metrobank on January 15, 1998, revealed that Aboc had not only organized CNRI and FFA but had also used Metrobank’s facilities, equipment, and even office premises for these activities.
Despite his explanations and the letter from Chua in his favor, Metrobank determined that Aboc’s actions amounted to serious misconduct, breach of trust, and loss of confidence.
Consequently, on February 12, 1998, Metrobank terminated Aboc’s employment.

The LA ruled that Aboc was illegally dismissed, ordering his reinstatement, payment of backwages, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.

The NLRC set aside the LA’s decision as to the illegal dismissal and instead found Aboc guilty of serious misconduct and breach of trust.
It awarded monetary benefits such as reinstatement wages, a salary increase, Christmas bonus, 13th month pay differential, and other salary differentials.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration led to a modified monetary award.

The CA affirmed the NLRC’s findings that Aboc was validly dismissed and also upheld the grant of the monetary award.
The CA opined that Aboc’s participation in the credit unions was irregular and in direct competition with Metrobank’s banking business.
The CA found that the due process requirements were met through the written explanation and the conference conducted on February 10, 1998.

Both Aboc and Metrobank filed petitions challenging the CA decision.
The petitions were consolidated after it was found that they involved the same set of facts, parties, and issues.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Aboc’s dismissal by Metrobank was valid.

Aboc contended he was not guilty of serious misconduct or breach of trust and that his participation in the credit union activities did not warrant termination.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Metrobank was liable to pay the monetary award to Aboc.

Aboc argued that the monetary awards, including salary increases and other benefits, should be granted.
Conversely, Metrobank maintained that only a limited monetary award should be given, excluding benefits derived from salary increases under its collective bargaining agreement.

Whether procedural lapses in petition filing (technicalities) were sufficient to dismiss Metrobank’s appeal.

Aboc claimed Metrobank’s petition was filed out of time due to technical deficiencies.
Metrobank rebutted this by asserting proper filing based on the date the law firm received the pertinent resolution, and argued that any delay was minimal and should not affect the merits.