G.R. No. 167716 - Premiere Development Bank vs. Mantal

Respondent Elsie Escudero Mantal was a regular employee working as an accounting clerk at the petitioner Premiere Development Bank’s Cubao branch since July 17, 1996.
On November 24, 2000, the branch manager, Rosario Detalla, instructed respondent—in the vernacular—to confirm a bank guarantee for GIA Fuel with the explanation "OKAY NA, may kulang pa lang dokumento."

Later on the same day, Emmie Crisostomo of Filpride Energy Corporation contacted the branch to inquire about whether GIA Fuel had a credit line or an account with the bank.
Respondent, after checking the bank computer, confirmed the existence of the account and affirmed that the bank guarantee appeared correct, based on the instructions she received.
Upon further verification by the petitioner’s head office, it was discovered that the bank guarantee was spurious.

Respondent was summoned to the head office to record the details she knew regarding the bank guarantee incident.
A memorandum was issued placing her under preventive suspension effective immediately for a period of 30 days.
During the ensuing investigation, branch manager Detalla admitted to issuing the falsified bank guarantee.

On December 21, 2000, Detalla tendered her irrevocable letter of resignation.
The following day, December 22, 2000, respondent was asked to execute a resignation letter, which she declined.
Subsequently, on December 22, 2000, respondent received a Notice of Termination.

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and claims for unpaid salary, half month salary, half month 13th month pay, as well as attorney’s fees and damages.
On September 4, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding petitioner liable for illegal suspension and dismissal, and ordered respondent’s reinstatement with full backwages and other benefits.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, it was found that petitioner failed to prove respondent’s involvement in any conspiracy with Detalla, that the alleged infraction was not connected with her functions as an encoder and accounts clerk, and that her mere act of verifying account details did not amount to gross or habitual negligence.
The Court of Appeals thereby reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, affirming the order for reinstatement and the payment of full backwages, half month salary, half month 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.

Whether the respondent was validly and legally suspended and subsequently dismissed from her position as accounting clerk.

Whether respondent’s actions in verifying the bank guarantee constituted gross negligence or serious misconduct amounting to a just cause for her dismissal.
Whether the single or isolated act of negligence, if any, could feasibly lead to a loss of trust and confidence warranting termination.

Whether the alleged infraction was within the scope of the respondent’s legitimate functions as an accounting clerk, considering her primary duties related to deposit openings and processing of withdrawals, not handling bank guarantees.

Whether the disciplinary measures were misplaced by attributing the responsibility for the irregular bank guarantee to the respondent instead of the branch manager who issued the falsified document.