Title
Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 203186
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2013
BPI Family VP Ramos accused of negligence in fraudulent auto loan; SC ruled deduction from retirement benefits unjust, citing bank's procedural flaws and lack of proof.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203186)

Factual Background

Xavier C. Ramos was employed by BPI Family, eventually rising to the role of Vice-President for Dealer Network Marketing/Auto Loans Division, starting in 1995. His primary responsibilities included evaluating auto loan applications and maintaining dealer relationships. A significant incident arose when Trezita B. Acosta, a client, obtained an unauthorized auto loan of P3,097,392.00, resulting in a fraudulent transaction leading to losses for BPI Family. Investigation showed that Ramos had issued necessary documents without following bank protocols and failed to confirm Acosta's identity. Consequently, BPI Family suffered a loss of P2,294,080.00, with Ramos bearing a proportionate loss of P546,000.00, which was deducted from his retirement benefits.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Ramos' complaint for underpayment of retirement benefits, ruling that the deduction was reasonable due to Ramos' negligence. The Labor Arbiter emphasized Ramos’ failure to adhere to the bank’s Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols and unauthorized issuance of documents, further stating that a quitclaim he executed barred future claims against the bank.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, arguing that the deductions were illegal and unreasonable. It determined that the alleged negligence was not sufficiently proven, as Ramos was not solely responsible for examining loan documents. The NLRC highlighted that the issuance of documents without prior approval was a common practice at BPI Family, thus ordering the bank to refund Ramos the full deducted amount with additional attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling

The CA affirmed Ramos' concurrent negligence, stating that he failed to verify Acosta’s identity and issued the necessary documents without proper clearance. However, it also noted the bank's concurrent negligence for allowing such practices, leading to a reduction in the deduction amount to P200,000.00. Ramos' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issue

The principal issue presented to the Court was whether the CA erred in asserting that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the deduction from Ramos' retirement benefits improper.

Court's Ruling

The Court found merit in the petition. It emphasized that for certiorari to be granted, there must be evidence of grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious exe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.