FACTS:
Respondent Mauricio was the Branch Manager of Prudential Bank’s Magallanes Branch in Makati City when he was dismissed from employment.
Spouses Marcelo and Corazon Cruz (Spouses Cruz) opened a dollar savings account (FXSD No. 221-6) with an initial cash deposit of US$500.00, in the Bank’s Magallanes Branch. At that time, Mauricio was already its Branch Manager. Spouses Cruz also executed Deeds of Real Estate Mortgage over their properties in San Juan in favor of the bank.
An audit investigation was conducted in the Magallanes Branch. The reports of the audit team showed that from March 1991 to August 1991, credits to FXSD No. 221-6 consisted mostly of dollar check deposits composed of U.S. Treasury Warrants (USTWs), U.S. Postal Money Orders, Travellers Express and Amexco Money Orders. Despite the fact that Spouses Cruz were not the payees of said instruments and neither of them endorsed the same, Mauricio allowed immediate withdrawals against them. Most of the proceeds of the encashments were then deposited to a peso savings account, S/A No. 3396, also in the name of the Spouses Cruz.
The dollar checks were eventually returned by their drawee banks for having forged endorsements, alterations to the stated amounts, or being drawn against insufficient funds, among other reasons. Allegedly, upon receipt of the returned checks at the Magallanes Branch, Mauricio debited FXSD No. 221-6, but such debits were made against the uncollected deposits of the Spouses Cruz. Some of the returned checks and USTWs were lodged to accounts receivable because the balance of FXSD No. 221-6 was not sufficient to cover the returned checks. Simultaneously, cash withdrawals were allowed even if S/A No. 3396 did not have sufficient balance to cover the withdrawals at the time they were made.
Mauricio was directed to report for work at the Head Office immediately. The Prudential Bank President issued a Memorandum to Mauricio furnishing him with a copy of the audit team’s report and directing him to report in writing within 72 hours from receipt of the memorandum why the bank should not institute an action against him. The report showed that the bank was exposed to losses amounting to $774,561.58.
While the investigation against Mauricio was ongoing, as conducted by a Hearing Committee, the property subject of the Deeds of Real Estate Mortgage executed by the Spouses Cruz was extrajudicially foreclosed by the Bank for. Spouses Cruz, however, sought the annulment and/or declaration of nullity of foreclosure in a complaint or civil case filed with RTC- Makati.
The Bank claimed that it sent the proper demand letters to the Spouses but to no avail. Thus, it was constrained to foreclose the mortgaged property extrajudicially for the settlement of the obligations of the Spouses Cruz including the returned USTWs, checks and drafts. Later, while the investigation against Mauricio was still ongoing, the Bank filed an Amended Answer to implead Mauricio in its counterclaim in the case filed by the Spouses against the former, contending that he conspired and confederated with the Spouses Cruz to commit the fraud.
The Hearing Committee of the Bank found that there was sufficient evidence to hold Mauricio guilty of the charges against him. The Board of Directors issued Resolution considering the recommendation of the Hearing Committee and the Board found Antonio S.A. Mauricio to have violated Bank policies and regulations and committed imprudent acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, resulting in monetary loss to the Bank and giving rise to loss of trust and confidence. The services of Mr. Mauricio was terminated and that his retirement benefits was forfeited.
Mauricio filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for back wages, retirement and provident benefits, vacation and sick leave credits, and actual, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. While the illegal dismissal complaint was pending, the Makati RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the Spouses Cruz and Mauricio. It was affirmed by the CA and Supreme Court.
On the other hand, LA rendered a Decision holding that the Bank was justified in terminating Mauricio’s employment. The LA ruled that even if Mauricio, as branch manager, was clothed with discretion, he gravely abused it to the detriment and prejudice of the Bank and that he was afforded procedural due process before he was dismissed. However, LA ordered the bank to pay Mauricio his 13th month pay and sick leaves earned and reimburse him his actual contributions to the provident fund, all with legal interest at 12% per annum from date of the decision until actual payment and/or finality of the decision.
Mauricio filed a partial appeal of the LA’s decision with the NLRC, which, however, affirmed the LA’s decision. On appeal, CA set aside the NLRC decision and ruled in favor of Mauricio. Bank filed the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the acts of Mauricio with respect to the accounts of Spouses Cruz can be considered as grounds for his termination due to loss of trust and confidence.
RULING:
Civil and labor cases require different quanta of proof – the former requiring preponderance of evidence while the latter only calls for substantial evidence. Despite the dissimilarity, this does not spell closing our eyes to facts conclusively determined in one proceeding when the determination of the very same facts are crucial in resolving the issues in another proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.
The present labor case is closely related to the civil case that was decided with finality. In the civil case, the Bank’s counterclaim for actual and exemplary damages against Mauricio was grounded on his alleged violations of office policies when he allowed the encashment and/or withdrawal prior to clearing of numerous USTWs and dollar checks and allegedly tried concealing from the Bank the fact that said instruments were returned.
The RTC in the civil case ruled:
“Further, this court finds that PRUDENTIAL’s branch manager MAURICIO’s act of allowing SPOUSES CRUZ to immediately withdraw the instruments is well within his functions as a branch manager. A person occupying such position exercises a certain degree of discretion with respect to the accommodations extended to certain valued clients such as herein SPOUSES CRUZ. Having been recommended by the legal counsel himself of PRUDENTIAL and in view of the fact that they have substantial deposit with the same bank, it cannot be doubted that SPOUSES CRUZ were valued clients.”
The court also holds that MAURICIO was not in anyway prompted by any malicious motive in approving the encashment and/or withdrawal.
The acts and omissions alleged by the Bank in the civil case as basis of its counterclaim against Mauricio, are the very same acts and omissions which were used as grounds to terminate his employment. Mauricio cannot be held to have abused the discretion he was clothed with absent some semblance of parameters. In the absence of such guidelines, the validity of Mauricio’s acts can be tested by determining whether they were justified under the circumstances. In exercising his discretion to allow the questioned withdrawals, Mauricio took into consideration the fact that the Spouses Cruz have substantial deposit and security, and enjoyed a favorable credit standing with the Bank. No malice can be inferred from Mauricio’s acts who tried to collect from the Spouses Cruz and reported all the transactions to the head office; in fact, the Bank never called his attention to any irregularity in the transactions but even continued to credit the account of the spouses for the value of the returned checks. Under the circumstances, Mauricio indeed fully considered the interest of his employer before approving the questioned transactions.
For a dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. Loss of trust and confidence stems from a breach of trust founded on dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent act. This is obviously not the case here.
Office Order No. 1596, one of the office orders allegedly violated by Mauricio, provides:
“Approving officers shall exercise extreme caution in allowing deposit of, encashment or withdrawals against foreign and out-of-town checks. Refund to the bank of the amount involved shall be the personal responsibility and accountability of the officer who authorized the deposit or encashment over the counter when the check should be returned by the drawee bank for any reason whatsoever.”
The above company directive is an explicit admission that Mauricio was clothed with such discretion to enter into the questioned transactions as well as a forewarning that in case the foreign and out-of-town checks were returned for whatever reason, the approving officer, in this case, Mauricio, shall be personally responsible and accountable. “personal responsibility and accountability” could only mean the reimbursement of the value of any dishonored check but does not mean termination of the approving officer’s employment for breaching the bank’s trust and confidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.
