G.R. No. 250776 - Celis vs. Bank of Makati , Inc.

Petitioner Nancy Claire Pit Celis was hired by respondent Bank of Makati on July 15, 2013, as an Account Officer at the Pasay City Branch.
On May 23, 2016, she was reassigned to the Legal and External Agency Department as an Administrative Officer.

Toward the end of 2017, the bank’s Human Resource Department received a report that petitioner had previously worked for the Bank of Placer in Surigao del Norte.
The report alleged that during her tenure at the Bank of Placer she was involved in an embezzlement case.
It was noted that petitioner had not disclosed her past employment with Bank of Placer in her job application with the respondent.

Acting on the report, respondent issued a Notice of Explanation on December 13, 2017, requiring petitioner to explain her omission.
Petitioner submitted a Written Explanation on December 21, 2017, in which she admitted failing to disclose her previous employment, attributing the omission to excitement during her application process, and denied any involvement in embezzlement.
A conference/hearing was conducted on January 8, 2018, where petitioner personally presented her side.
On January 10, 2018, respondent issued a Notice of Decision terminating her employment for:

Violating the bank’s Code of Conduct for “knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment,” and
Engaging in serious misconduct under Article 297 of the Labor Code—further aggravated by her prior disciplinary infractions.

In 2016, petitioner was suspended for 10 days for improper conduct and acts of gross discourtesy or disrespect to fellow employees.
In addition, she was suspended for 15 days for committing an infraction for personal borrowing from the bank’s clients.

Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims, and damages, contending that her termination was prompted by her revelations regarding corrupt practices by her division head and department head.
The Labor Arbiter issued a Decision on May 23, 2018, ruling in her favor by holding that her omission did not amount to a serious offense warranting suspension and termination.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling in its Decision dated July 13, 2018, dismissing the respondent's appeal and ruling that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
A motion for reconsideration by the respondent was filed and subsequently denied in a Resolution dated October 26, 2018, by the NLRC.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in its Decision dated June 7, 2019, holding that the respondent validly dismissed petitioner based on the subject infraction and applying the Principle of Totality of Infractions.
The CA’s ruling was met with a motion for reconsideration by petitioner, which was ultimately denied in a Resolution dated December 6, 2019.

In connection with the investigation, petitioner was placed under a 30-day preventive suspension beginning December 18, 2017.
Although preventive suspension is meant to protect the employer pending the investigation, it resulted in the deprivation of petitioner’s salary and benefits.
The suspension was based on the allegation that she omitted material information regarding her previous employment, thus posing a potential threat to the bank’s interests.

Whether the respondent validly dismissed petitioner from employment.
Whether petitioner’s failure to disclose her past employment, amid allegations of involvement in an embezzlement case, constitutes the offense of “knowingly giving false or misleading information” in the context of the bank’s Code of Conduct.
Whether the application of the Principle of Totality of Infractions against petitioner is proper, given her previous disciplinary records and the separate nature of the offenses.
Whether the imposition of preventive suspension was justified under the circumstances and supported by evidence of a serious and imminent threat.