Facts:
On 27 December 2002, at the BPI-Bacolod Singcang Branch, petitioners
Amelia R. Enriquez and
Remo Sia—respectively the
branch manager and
assistant branch manager—were confronted with a claimed cash shortage of
P36,000.00 allegedly discovered by teller
Geraldine Descartin at the close of banking hours, the last banking day of the year. Petitioners’ version was that Descartin initially reported a discrepancy, but that the shortage resulted from an oversight involving the failure of her mother-in-law,
Remedios Descartin, to sign the withdrawal slip; petitioners directed a review of the day’s transactions, required written memoranda from the tellers, and permitted Descartin to go out to secure the missing signature. Petitioners further asserted that by about
7:00 p.m. Descartin returned with the signed withdrawal slip and the amount was debited from the client’s account, thereby regularizing the transaction before the end of the day, and that, as there was no actual loss to the bank, the matter was promptly laid to rest. Respondents, however, narrated that Descartin’s shortage stemmed from funds temporarily borrowed to meet personal obligations, with an intention to return the amount in the first week of January; that when teller
Evelyn Fregil informed Sia and Enriquez of the situation, both suggested that Descartin fill the shortage with a loan from her family; and that Descartin instead borrowed the money from her in-laws, posting at
5:21 p.m. an unsigned withdrawal slip for
P36,000.00 against the joint account of her parents-in-law, with petitioners approving the transaction at
5:22 p.m. due to the teller floor limit requiring superior approval. According to respondents, Descartin left again to obtain Remedios’ signature and returned after
7:00 p.m., after which the incident allegedly went into a cover-up. Respondents alleged that on 28 December 2002, Fregil was told Descartin would prepare a “white lie report” to justify the incident as inadvertently misplaced and regularized within the same day; and that on 2 January 2003, Fregil signed the report, only to retract in February 2003 after expressing uneasiness to a colleague, which eventually led to further investigation by
respondent Luis A. Puentevella and to a retraction letter and affidavit dated
3 March 2003 stating that there was indeed a cover-up. After an investigation that allegedly included an audit by BPI’s Auditing Division, petitioners were summoned for polygraph testing on
25 April 2003, refused polygraph testing, and thereafter received show-cause memoranda on
27 June 2003. They denied the charges. On
14 July 2003, a committee hearing was conducted in which petitioners and the tellers were separately interviewed. On
3 September 2003, petitioners were dismissed for
breach of trust and confidence and
dishonesty. Petitioners filed
on 4 September 2003 separate complaints for
illegal dismissal with money claims including backwages, retirement pay, attorneys’ fees, and moral and exemplary damages. Labor Arbiter
Danilo C. Acosta ruled on
29 March 2004 that petitioners were illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement and substantial monetary awards. On appeal, the
NLRC Fourth Division, Cebu City reversed the Labor Arbiter’s findings, concluded that respondents had
just cause because petitioners tried to cover up Descartin’s infraction instead of taking proper action, but dismissed the complaint while ordering petitioners to receive
financial assistance equivalent to one-half months pay for every year of service. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC
in toto, leading petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Whether the NLRC appeal and the Court of Appeals affirmance were procedurally defective for lack of proper corporate authorization, and whether petitioners were validly dismissed for
breach of trust and confidence and
dishonesty.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: