Facts:

The case involves China Banking Corporation as the petitioner and Mariano M. Borromeo as the respondent. The events leading to the case began when Borromeo joined China Banking Corporation on June 1, 1989, as a Manager at the Regional Office in Cebu City. He was later transferred to Cagayan de Oro City as the Branch Manager. Over the years, Borromeo received consistently high performance ratings and was promoted multiple times, ultimately becoming the Assistant Vice-President for the Branch Banking Group in Mindanao by October 16, 1996. However, unbeknownst to the bank, Borromeo approved several DAUD/BP accommodations amounting to P2,441,375 in favor of a client, Joel Maniwan, without the necessary authority from the bank's Executive Committee or Board of Directors. These accommodations were against the bank's standard operating procedures, which required such approvals to be granted only with express authority.

The situation escalated when checks related to these ...

Facts:

• Employment and Promotions: Mariano M. Borromeo joined China Banking Corporation on June 1, 1989, as a Manager. Over the years, he received promotions and consistently high performance ratings, culminating in his promotion to Assistant Vice-President in 1996.
• Unauthorized DAUD/BP Accommodations: Prior to his last promotion, Borromeo, without proper authorization, approved DAUD/BP accommodations amounting to P2,441,375 in favor of Joel Maniwan. These accommodations violated the bank’s standard operating procedures, which required explicit approval from the Executive Committee or Board of Directors.
• Bouncing Checks: The checks involved in the DAUD/BP accommodations began bouncing in September 1996, marked with “Payment Stopped/Account Closed.”
• Discovery and Investigation: The bank discovered the unauthorized accommodations when Borromeo requested a loan to regularize Maniwan’s DAUD availments. Senior management sought clarification from Borromeo, who admitted to approving the accommodations without higher management approval and accepted full responsibility for his actions.
• Resignation and Penalty: Borromeo resigned in May 1997. The bank, citing violations of its Code of Ethics, withheld P836,637.08 from his separation benefits as restitution for the losses incurred due to the unauthorized accommodations.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

• Administrative Discretion: The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not bound by strict rules of procedure and evidence. They may decide cases based on position papers and supporting documents without the need for formal hearings.
• Due Process: Due process in administrative proceedings simply requires an opportunity to be heard. Borromeo was given this opportunity through written communications and admitted to his violations.
• Company Policies and Restitution: Company policies, including the imposition of restitution, are binding on employees unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law. Borromeo, as a senior officer, was required to comply with the bank’s policies and was subject to disciplinary action for violations.
• Finality of Factual Findings: The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality by the Supreme Court.