Title
Philippine Savings Bank vs. Genove
Case
G.R. No. 202049
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2020
Bank teller Hazel Genove was illegally dismissed after a P13,000 discrepancy during a cash transaction. The Supreme Court ruled her actions were simple negligence, not gross misconduct, entitling her to separation pay and backwages.
bank teller
termination
dishonesty
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202049)

Factual Background

On July 7, 2004 the spouses Basubas presented two bags of cash to respondent at petitioner’s Cebu Mandaue-San Miguel branch to purchase a cashier’s check in the amount of P1,358,000.00; respondent, who had been the lone teller of that branch since May 2004, counted the cash intermittently while attending other customers. The cashier, Luvimin S. Tago, issued the cashier’s check to Mrs. Basubas before completion of the teller’s counting. After respondent completed counting the second bag in various denominations she recorded a total of P1,345,000.00 and accepted a handed difference of P13,000.00 from Mr. Basubas. Later the parties recounted and conducted searches; an incident report followed, and subsequently a deposit slip with P12,000.00 folded and taped and a separate P1,000.00 bill were discovered near and under respondent’s workstation, together amounting to P13,000.00.

Administrative Action and Termination

Petitioner issued a show-cause letter to respondent on August 5, 2004 for alleged dishonesty, qualified theft, gross negligence and violations of bank policy and Code of Conduct, required respondent to undergo a polygraph test at the NBI, and conducted an administrative hearing; petitioner then terminated respondent by memorandum dated November 12, 2004 on the ground that she failed to conduct the initial counting in the presence of the depositor and the missing P13,000.00 were found in her cubicle.

RAB Proceedings and Decision

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims before the RAB. The RAB rendered a Decision dated March 20, 2006 that found respondent was dismissed for cause but awarded her proportionate 13th month pay, teller’s allowance and unused leave credits totaling P86,553.33, while dismissing other claims and the case against individual respondents for lack of merit. The RAB concluded that respondent, as a confidential employee, breached the trust placed in her because the missing P13,000.00 was located in her cubicle.

NLRC Proceedings and Contradictory Rulings

On appeal the NLRC reversed the RAB in its Decision dated February 28, 2007, finding respondent’s dismissal unjustified and ordering reinstatement with full backwages plus the monetary awards previously granted and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reasoned that the charge of dishonesty had not been satisfactorily established, searches had yielded nothing at the time, respondent had taken the polygraph test, and respondent’s heavy workload as lone teller supported a finding of simple, not gross, negligence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was later granted by the NLRC in its Resolution dated May 21, 2007, which reversed the NLRC’s own Decision and declared that respondent had been validly dismissed, reasoning that respondent’s procedural lapses were undeniably gross and inexcusable and that the discovery of the missing money in her cubicle supported loss of trust.

Court of Appeals Decision

Respondent sought relief with the Court of Appeals which, in a Decision dated August 8, 2011, set aside the NLRC Resolutions of May 21, 2007 and August 24, 2007 and ordered petitioner to pay respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement computed at one month pay for every year of service and the other monetary claims as computed by the RAB, plus attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the total award. The CA held that petitioner failed to prove willful dishonesty or a willful breach of trust and that the bank’s tolerance of deviations from procedure, including issuance of the cashier’s check before completion of counting and the assignment of a single teller to heavy volume, undercut petitioner’s claim that respondent’s negligence was the proximate cause of the loss.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

Petitioner argued that the CA erred by concluding that respondent was dismissed without valid cause despite clear evidence to the contrary; that the CA erred in awarding separation pay and attorney’s fees because respondent willfully breached trust and decided to steal money from the client; and that the CA erred in the interpretation and computation of respondent’s unused leave credits awarded by the RAB.

Supreme Court’s Review Framework and Burden of Proof

The Court reiterated that the burden of proving just cause and observance of due process in dismissal cases rested on the employer and that employer proof must be by substantial evidence, which the Court defined following applicable jurisprudence. The Court recognized that findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA ordinarily enjoyed finality, but where their factual findings conflicted the Supreme Court could resolve the factual issues, particularly because the LA, NLRC and CA had differed in this case.

Analysis on Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty

Applying the legal standard for gross and habitual neglect of duty, the Court found petitioner failed to prove that respondent’s lapses amounted to gross negligence. The Court explained that gross negligence denotes a want of even slight care and must be habitual to justify dismissal; a single or isolated error does not suffice. The Court accepted that respondent had been the lone teller, that she completed counting over P1,358,000.00 amid other transactions, and that workload and petitioner’s own tolerance of procedural departures contributed to the incident. The Court also noted that petitioner’s cashier issued the cashier’s check before counting was completed, which demonstrated an implied tolerance of irregular practice and undermined petitioner’s claim that respondent alone proximately caused the loss.

Analysis on Willful Breach of Trust and Dishonesty

The Court addressed the ground of willful breach of trust, observing that while a teller occupies a position of trust, dismissal for loss of confidence requires proof that the breach was willful, intentional and without justifiable excuse. The Court found that searches of respondent’s person, belongings and cubicle initially yielded nothing and that the discovery of the missing money later did not, without more, establish a willful concealment by respondent. The Court noted procedural questions about the thoroughness of the search, the immediate discovery by Tago after others had left, and petitioner’s failure to present other evidence such as CCTV footage to explain how the P13,000.00 ended up in the cubicle. On this record the Court concluded that petitioner had not discharged its burden to show willful breach of trust.

On Polygraph Evidence and Qualified Theft Allegation

The Court considered the polygraph results and reiterated the principle from People v. Adoviso th

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms