Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Velasco
Case
G.R. No. 166096
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2008
PNB audit officer Velasco withdrew $15K, failed to post it, leading to overstatement. Charged with misconduct, dismissed. SC upheld dismissal, citing dishonesty, no separation pay.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 166096)

Facts:

Ramon Brigido L. Velasco was a Philippine National Bank (PNB) audit officer and, with his wife, Belen Amparo E. Velasco, maintained Dollar Savings Account No. 010-714698-9 at PNB Escolta Branch. On June 30, 1995, while on official business at the Legazpi Branch, Velasco went to the PNB Ligao, Albay Branch and withdrew US$15,000.00 from the dollar savings account when the account balance was US$15,486.07, using an Interoffice Savings Account Withdrawal Slip or Ticket Exchange Center (TEC). On July 10, 1995, Escolta Branch received the TEC covering the withdrawal; however, the withdrawal was not posted in the Escolta Branch computer, so it was not recorded and thus overstated Velasco’s account balance. In September 1995, during a provincial audit, Velasco claimed that a kin informed him in Manila that his New York-based brother, Gregorio Velasco, had sent checks totaling US$15,000.00 which would be deposited in time in the account. On October 6, 1995, Velasco updated the account by depositing US$12.78, reflecting a balance of US$15,486.01, and he said he was satisfied because he believed the US$15,000.00 was the amount from his brother. On later dates, both spouses made inter-branch withdrawals from the dollar account, and the account was eventually closed. During a PNB audit at Escolta Branch on February 6, 1996, Internal Audit Department member Molina D. Salvador discovered that the June 30, 1995 inter-branch withdrawal by Velasco at Ligao Branch of US$15,000.00 was not posted and that no corresponding deposit was credited to the account. Velasco was notified on February 7, 1996 and, after further developments, on February 8, 1996 he delivered three checks of US$5,000.00 each totaling US$15,000.00 to Dolorita Donado, assistant vice president of Internal Audit Department and team leader of the Escolta Task Force, but Donado returned the checks and required Velasco to personally deposit them; on February 14, 1996, Velasco deposited the checks, and the amount was applied to his unposted June 30 withdrawal. On February 9, 1996, PNB vice president B.C. Hermoso required Velasco to submit a written explanation, and on February 12, 1996 Velasco filed a sworn letter-explanation admitting the withdrawal as a “no-book” transaction, stating that it was accommodated because the statement of account allegedly showed a balance and that he was personally known to the Ligao officers and staff. On February 27, 1996, Ligao Branch officers confirmed the “no-book” withdrawal. On March 5, 1996, PNB formally charged Velasco with “Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and/or Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service” for irregular handling of the dollar savings account, including allegations that he transacted a no-book withdrawal in violation of Section 1216 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks, failed to present a required letter of introduction under General Circular 3-72/92, and attempted to benefit from the overstatement of the account due to non-posting, while also being presumed aware of the discrepancy; PNB also acted administratively by withholding various benefits on April 8, 1996 and placing him under preventive suspension on April 10, 1996 for ninety (90) days. On May 2, 1996, Velasco filed a sworn answer; unlike his earlier letter-explanation, he then claimed his withdrawal was “with passbook,” attaching a passbook copy bearing a June 30, 1995 entry of US$15,000.00, and explained that his earlier statement was made under pressing circumstances because his passbook, supposedly kept by his wife, could not be contacted. The Administrative Adjudication Office (AAO), by decision approved by management, exonerated him of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, but found him guilty of grave misconduct, mitigating it by length of service and absence of actual loss, and imposed forced resignation with benefits. After Velasco was notified on October 31, 1996, he filed on December 22, 1997 a complaint before the NLRC for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and damages but ordered payment of unpaid wages from May 12, 1996 to October 31, 1996; it reasoned that, as an audit officer, Velasco should have known bank procedures, that his passbook entry was forged to support a “with passbook” defense, and that even if the withdrawal were assumed to have been made with passbook, he still failed to question the inconsistency of the amounts credited as shown in his account updates. The NLRC affirmed with modification, reducing the award of unpaid salaries to May 27, 1996 to July 31, 1996, holding that Velasco’s lack of credibility on the explanation of non-posting was demonstrated by a cursory look at his passbook, which showed the withdrawal as a “no-book” transaction and that the falsified entry was meant to bolster his later claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the NLRC and Labor Arbiter findings, ordering PNB to pay separation pay equivalent to half-month salary for every year of service plus backwages from Velasco’s supposed illegal termination up to finality, reasoning that the alleged failure to present passbook and letter of introduction did not constitute misconduct and, assuming serious misconduct, that PNB’s own failure to post the withdrawal should be considered, and further finding the offense not work-related for just cause. PNB then sought review in the Supreme Court, raising procedural and substantive issues.

Issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred and gravely abused its discretion in finding that Velasco was illegally dismissed by PNB, and in directing PNB to pay separation pay and backwages.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.