Case Digest (G.R. No. 172401)
Facts:
The case involves Carlos G. Azul as the petitioner and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank as the respondent. The events leading to the case began when Azul, who served as the branch accountant at the Iriga branch of the bank, was implicated in "kiting" operations. This practice involved treating check deposits as cash and permitting withdrawals from uncollected check deposits, resulting in a reported loss of approximately P4,469,500.00. An Ad Hoc Committee was formed to investigate the matter, during which Azul admitted to his involvement but claimed he was merely following the instructions of Danilo Disuanco, the branch manager. Disuanco allegedly directed Azul to use his password and ID to release the float days, which are the days required for checks to clear before withdrawal. Following the investigation, the bank terminated Azul's employment and forfeited his benefits in accordance with the bank's Employee Guidelines.
Azul subsequently filed a c...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 172401)
Facts:
Employment and Role:
Petitioner Carlos G. Azul was the branch accountant of Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank-Iriga Branch.
Audit Findings:
An audit revealed that petitioner was involved in "kiting" operations, which involved treating check deposits as "cash" and allowing withdrawals from uncollected check deposits. This irregularity resulted in a total loss of P4,469,500.00.
Investigation:
An Ad Hoc Committee conducted a formal investigation. Petitioner admitted his participation in the operations but claimed he was merely following the instructions of Danilo Disuanco, the branch manager. Petitioner stated that Disuanco instructed him to use his password and ID to release the "float days" (the number of days for checks to be cleared for withdrawal). Petitioner denied profiting from the transactions.
Termination:
Following the investigation, the bank terminated petitioner's services and forfeited his benefits under Section IX of the bank's Employee Guidelines.
Labor Case:
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), seeking reinstatement, backwages, and other benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding the bank guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages.
NLRC Decision:
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision and denied the bank's motion for reconsideration for being one day late.
Court of Appeals Decision:
The bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC and declared petitioner's dismissal lawful.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded the bank's failure to timely file its motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
- Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, upholding the lawful dismissal of petitioner due to loss of trust and confidence.