Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1217)
Facts:
Philippine Savings Bank v. Hazel Thea F. Genove, G.R. No. 202049, June 15, 2020, First Division, Reyes, J. Jr., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) employed respondent Hazel Thea F. Genove as a teller beginning July 19, 1995 and assigned her to its Cebu Mandaue–San Miguel branch; by May 2004 she was effectively the lone teller. On July 7, 2004 spouses Ildebrando and Emma Basubas came to the branch to purchase a cashier’s check for P1,358,000.00 and left two bags of cash with respondent for counting. Respondent began counting but, because she was the only teller, intermittently stopped to assist other clients; Mrs. Basubas obtained the cashier’s check from the cashier Luvimin S. Tago and left while Mr. Basubas waited. When respondent opened the second bag she found mixed denominations and asked Mr. Basubas to oversee the counting; after tallying she determined the cash amounted to P1,345,000.00 (a P13,000.00 shortfall), which Mr. Basubas handed to respondent; he later returned and claimed the collection lacked P13,000.00.
After additional recounts — including a post-closing recount when the Basubases returned with third parties and requested a search — respondent submitted to searches of her person, belongings and teller’s cage by the bank security guard and later took an NBI polygraph. Tago later found P12,000.00 folded with a deposit slip under a cabinet and a P1,000.00 bill taped inside an old bill arranger in the sliding door cabinet of respondent’s cubicle. PSBank summoned respondent, required a written explanation, conducted an administrative hearing, and on November 12, 2004 terminated her employment for dishonesty, qualified theft, gross negligence and violation of bank policies and its Code of Conduct.
Respondent filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) No. VII a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The RAB (March 20, 2006) found respondent validly dismissed for breach of trust but awarded proportionate 13th month pay, teller’s allowance and unused leave credits (P86,553.33); other claims dismissed. Respondent appealed to the NLRC which (February 28, 2007) reversed and ruled dismissal was without valid cause, ordered reinstatement with full backwages and awarded benefits plus 10% attorney’s fees. PSBank moved for reconsideration; the NLRC granted it (Resolution May 21, 2007) and again declared respondent validly dismissed, denying reinstatement and backwages. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and she filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 03070 (Decision August 8, 2011) set aside the NLRC Resolutions and ordered PSBank to pay respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and other monetary claims as computed by the RAB, plus 10% attorney’s fees; the CA found PSBank’s tolerance of procedural lapses and its management practices contributed to the incident and that respondent did not willful...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court resolve factual disputes in a labor case where the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA are inconsistent?
- Did petitioner prove by substantial evidence that respondent’s dismissal was justified for just causes (dishonesty, gross and habitual neglect of duty, willful breach of trust, or qualified theft) under the Labor Code?
- What is the appropriate remedy if respondent was illegally dismissed — reinstatement with backwages or ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)