G.R. No. 163788 - Maralit vs. Philippine National Bank

Ester B. Maralit was employed by Philippine National Bank (PNB) from 27 August 1968 to 31 December 1998, starting as a casual clerk and eventually rising to the position of branch manager.
In February 1998, PNB initiated an early retirement scheme and approved the Special Separation Incentive Plan (SSIP) through its Board Resolution No. 1 dated 25 February 1998.

On 7 July 1998, PNB issued General Circular No. 1-355/98 setting guidelines for the SSIP, which included provisions regarding personnel with pending administrative cases or who were under preliminary investigation.
The Circular specified that while such personnel could avail of the SSIP, payment of benefits would be executed only after the resolution of their respective cases and provided that no disqualifying facts were established.

On 8 September 1998, PNB’s Internal Audit Group (IAG) issued a memorandum alleging that Maralit had violated bank policies by approving transactions that led to the return of unfunded checks amounting to P54,950,000.
The investigation revealed that Maralit, as co-signatory, had approved issuance of Manager’s Checks against uncleared Maybank checks. Her actions were connected with a kiting operation reportedly involving Sanao Marketing Corporation.
A series of internal communications (memoranda from branch officers and vice presidents) detailed the chain of events including the forwarding of irregular transactions to the IAG and subsequent directives for her to submit a written explanation under oath.

On 15 September 1998, Maralit filed her application for early retirement. Soon after, on 29 September 1998, PNB’s memorandum charged her with serious misconduct, gross violation of bank rules, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
Specific charges included:

Approval of unfunded checks for deposit that resulted in returned checks, thereby causing significant bank losses.
Toleration of irregular transactions involving multiple resubmissions of uncleared checks.

As part of disciplinary measures, on 16 October 1998, Maralit was placed under preventive suspension as directed by PNB.

On 20 November 1998, PNB conditionally approved Maralit’s early retirement effective as of the close of business on 31 December 1998, clarifying that payment of benefits was contingent on the final resolution of the administrative investigation.
Later, based on the findings of its Administrative Adjudication Panel (dated 14 February 2000), PNB dismissed Maralit with the forfeiture of her retirement benefits, citing her serious misconduct and gross violation of bank policies.
Maralit subsequently filed a complaint with the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for non-payment of benefits along with claims for damages, leading to a Labor Arbiter’s decision on 22 January 2001 awarding her retirement benefits and additional damages.

The Labor Arbiter’s decision awarded Maralit her retirement benefits as well as attorney’s fees and exemplary damages; however, the NLRC, in its 27 August 2001 Resolution, modified this award by deleting the exemplary damages award.
PNB sought judicial intervention by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, challenging the NLRC’s affirmation of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on grounds of alleged grave abuse of discretion and errors in factual findings.

Whether the act of affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision by the NLRC constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.

Did the NLRC exceed its appellate authority by affirming with modification the earlier Labor Arbiter ruling?
Was the reaffirmation of the decision merely the exercise of a duty mandated by law?

Whether the appellate error alleged by Maralit amounts to more than a mere error in judgment.

Can the factual findings that were allegedly erroneous be characterized as grave abuse of discretion?
Were the evidentiary findings regarding her preliminary investigation and due process correctly determined?

Whether a court in a special civil action for certiorari can substitute its own factual findings for those of the labor agency.

Is it within the power of the Court of Appeals to reexamine and reconsider the evidence presented to the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter?
Does the law allow the submission and consideration of new evidence in such proceedings?

Whether the court erred in addressing the issue of Maralit’s employment status, namely whether she had retired or been dismissed, particularly given the retroactive effect applied by PNB.

Does an approved retirement take precedence over a subsequent dismissal?
How does the principle of estoppel apply when an employer retroactively dismisses a retired employee?

Whether the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and executory, and the implications of that finality for subsequent proceedings.

Can a decision that has long been final be revisited or “reinstated” by the courts despite procedural issues raised in the petition?