G.R. No. 142668 - United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Basco

Respondent Ruben E. Basco was employed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) for 17 years, served as Bank Operations Manager at its Olongapo Branch, and was both a depositor—maintaining a checking account at the Las Piñas Branch—and a stockholder holding 804 common shares at par value.
Concurrently, Basco served as an underwriter at United Coconut Planters Life Association (Cocolife), a subsidiary of UCPB, and actively solicited insurance policies from UCPB employees.

On June 19, 1995, UCPB notified Basco of the termination of his employment, citing grave abuse of discretion, breach of trust, and misuse of authority in his managerial role.
In response to his dismissal, Basco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, and damages before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), initiating labor cases against the bank.

Despite being terminated, Basco continued to frequent the bank’s main office in Makati to solicit insurance policies from UCPB employees and discussed his labor complaint with them.
Basco also maintained an active role as an insurance agent at All-Asia Life Insurance Company, thereby continuing to be involved in financial transactions within bank premises.

On November 15, 1995, Luis Ma. Ongsiapco, First Vice-President, Human Resource Division of UCPB, issued a memorandum directing the Vice-President of the Security Department to bar Basco from all bank premises.
The memorandum, which was circulated along with a passport-size picture of Basco, explicitly stated that due to his pending charges against the bank, he should not be allowed access to any branch or area of UCPB.

On December 7, 1995, Basco, through his counsel, formally requested Ongsiapco to reconsider the memorandum and allow him limited access to the bank premises to conduct his insurance business.
In a reply dated December 12, 1995, Ongsiapco maintained that bank policy did not permit non-employees, including former employees like Basco, to have free access to areas where confidential and business-related work involving clients and records was carried out.

On December 21, 1995, Basco visited the bank office and was courteously informed by an employee (Assistant Manager Junne Cacay) that he had to leave as office hours had ended, following the implementation of the memorandum by security guards.
On January 31, 1996, while completing a transaction at the teller’s booth at the Makati Branch, Basco was again confronted by security guards. Despite his plea to finish his transaction, he was stopped from approaching a bank employee (Casil) who was delivering a check, and his presence was logged as he was compelled to leave the area.

On March 11, 1996, Basco filed a complaint for damages against UCPB and Ongsiapco in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, alleging that the exclusion from the premises—described as a “variation of destierro”—resulted in humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of dignity.
The complaint sought payment of moral, exemplary, and attorney’s fees damages, citing the memorandum as a surreptitious penalty for his lawful exercise of rights as a depositor and stockholder.

UCPB and its representatives argued that Basco’s termination was based on findings of fraud, abuse of discretion, and other grave offenses committed during his tenure, which justified limiting his access to the bank’s premises.
The bank maintained that the issuance of the memorandum and its enforcement were necessary to protect proprietary records, maintain security protocols, and ensure the confidentiality of bank operations.
Additionally, the petitioners raised affirmative defenses and interposed counterclaims for damages, arguing that Basco’s conduct in circulating information about his labor case and soliciting insurance policies disrupted bank operations and violated internal policies.

The RTC rendered judgment in May 1998 in favor of Basco, ordering the bank to rescind the memorandum and pay various damages.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its March 30, 2000 decision, modified the trial court ruling by deleting awards for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees, replacing them with an award of nominal damages for the security guards’ conduct on January 31, 1996.
The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the abuse of the right to self-help, the propriety of the security measures imposed on Basco as a depositor and stockholder, and the validity of their counterclaims.

Whether the bank, through Ongsiapco, abused its right in barring Basco from all bank premises by issuing a blanket memorandum without regard to exceptions for his continued banking activities.
Whether such an exclusion violated Basco’s rights as both a depositor and a stockholder.

Whether the bank’s security personnel exceeded their mandate by preventing Basco from accessing areas that were not inherently dangerous or threatening—specifically, by stopping him when he was simply transacting business at the teller’s booth.
The issue on whether the timing and manner of the security guards’ intervention constituted an abuse of the bank’s right of self-help.

Whether Basco suffered humiliation and emotional distress as a result of being denied access under conditions that were unnecessarily strict and publicly embarrassing.
Whether Basco is entitled to moral, exemplary, or at least nominal damages given the circumstances.

Whether the bank’s counterclaim for damages, based on allegations that Basco’s actions disrupted operations and compromised internal security, is valid.
Whether initiating a labor complaint or circulating information about that complaint constitutes bad faith or malice on Basco’s part.

Application of the Right to Self-help under Article 429 of the New Civil Code

Whether the exercise of the bank’s self-help right to exclude persons from its premises was justified under the circumstances.
How the limitations imposed by internal policies and ethical codes should affect the application of this right.