G.R. No. 88435 - Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

Complainant Rosemarie Balba was employed by Peak Development Inc. as Systems Administration Personnel starting January 20, 1994.
She was initially involved in computerizing the company’s Finance Department and later promoted to Finance Officer in November 1994 following the termination of the previous Finance Officer.
Her employment status was not disputed by both parties, although issues arose related to her job performance and responsibilities.

In her amended complaint dated July 1, 1996, petitioner charged respondents with:

Illegal suspension and dismissal.
Nonpayment of service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and cash conversion of vacation leave.
Claim for damages.

The central dispute arose following an assignment in October 1995 wherein petitioner was tasked to conduct an E-VAT study amid preparations for the implementation of the expanded value-added tax law.
Subsequently, delays in her submission of the required report led to reminders and increased scrutiny from management.

A new Internal Auditor, Ms. Chelita B. Icaro, was hired on February 9, 1996, who compiled audit findings revealing various irregularities such as:

Lack of proper subsidiary ledger cards and proper accounting documentation.
Delays in submission of cash position reports and late bank reconciliations.
Erroneous recording practices including misuse of accounts and failure to maintain proper financial controls.

When confronted with these discrepancies, the complainant allegedly questioned Ms. Icaro’s authority instead of cooperating.
The matter escalated to disciplinary actions wherein:

A memorandum dated April 17, 1996, placed the complainant under preventive suspension and demanded her explanation regarding several alleged failures.
A subsequent memorandum dated May 2, 1996, required an explanation about charging overtime pay despite her status as a managerial employee.

The complainant submitted written explanations on April 19, 1996, and May 13, 1996, detailing her position and justifying her actions regarding the E-VAT study and overtime pay.

Based on her unsatisfactory explanations and allegations of insubordination, negligence, and incompetence, an individual respondent terminated her employment on May 20, 1996, citing loss of trust and confidence.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the illegal dismissal complaint on grounds of lack of merit but ordered the payment of proportionate 13th month pay.
The complainant, as private respondent, further appealed to the NLRC, which later declared her dismissal illegal and awarded separation pay, one-year backwages, and attorney’s fees, while modifying the previous decision.

The NLRC’s decision alleging grave abuse of discretion.
The conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the subsequent NLRC decision.

The Court of Appeals (CA) in its first decision dismissed the petition by emphasizing that judicial review under certiorari is limited to errors of jurisdiction and that factual findings of administrative agencies should be accorded deference.
On a motion for reconsideration, the CA revisited the factual record, found substantial evidence supporting the LA’s findings of gross incompetence, and ruled in favor of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
However, the petitioner contended that these findings did not justify dismissal and that the NLRC's ruling correcting the LA’s factual findings was more in line with the evidence.

Whether the CA erred by delving into factual findings rather than limiting its review to errors of jurisdiction in a writ of certiorari and prohibition.
Whether it was proper for the CA to evaluate the conflicting factual determinations of the LA and the NLRC to ascertain if there was grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the grounds cited for dismissal—inefficient accounting and financial policies, failure to produce an E-VAT study on time, and charging of overtime pay—constituted just and valid causes for termination based on loss of trust and confidence.
Whether the alleged inefficiencies and delays amounted to misconduct sufficient to justify the respondent’s loss of confidence in the petitioner’s capabilities.

Whether the NLRC’s ruling declaring the petitioner’s dismissal as illegal was properly supported by evidence or if the Labor Arbiter’s findings of dismissal due to gross inefficiency and incompetence were more consistent with the record.
Whether the petitioner’s act of charging overtime pay, along with the other grounds, could be aggregated to demonstrate a breach of trust amounting to misconduct.