Cruz v. BPI (G.R. No. 173357; February 13, 2013)

CASE DIGEST: ROWENA DE LEON CRUZ, Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent. Cruz v. BPI (G.R. No. 173357. February 13, 2013).

FACTS: Petitioner was hired by Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) in 1989. Upon the merger of FEBTC with respondent BPI in April 2000, petitioner automatically became an employee of respondent. Petitioner held the position of Assistant Branch Manager of the BPI Ayala Avenue Branch in Makati City, and she was in charge of the Trading Section.

On July 12, 2002, after 13 years of continuous service, respondent terminated petitioner on grounds of gross negligence and breach of trust. Petitioner's dismissal was brought about by the fraud perpetrated against three depositors, namely, Geoffrey L. Uymatiao, Maybel Caluag and Evelyn G. Avila, in respondent's Ayala Avenue Branch for the alleged unauthorized pre-termination and withdrawal from the accounts of the said depositors approved by the petitioner.

Based on the records, it was shown that the petitioner was directed by BPI Vice-President to explain her side and asserted that she followed the bank procedure/policy on pre-termination of accounts, opening of transitory accounts and reactivation of dormant accounts. She explained that she approved the withdrawals from certain accounts of these clients upon verifying the authenticity of the signatures of the depositors involved. On May 22, 2002, an administrative hearing was held to give petitioner an opportunity to explain her side of the controversy. With regard to the pre-termination of Uymatiao's USD CD, petitioner claimed that the Trader presented to her what she believed was an original and genuine Moreover, petitioner stated that at the time the alleged fraudulent transactions took place, she was not yet an Assistant Manager, but only a Cash II Officer of the branch, still operating under the FEBTC set-up. As such, she was in charge of overseeing and supervising all the transactions in the Trading Section, among other departments. Hence, her responsibilities required her only to bring out signature card files from the vault to the Trading Section and to ensure that these files were returned to the vault at the close of banking hours. On July 10, 2002, a notice of termination was issued informing petitioner of her dismissal effective July 12, 2002. Petitioner filed an appeal before BPI President Xavier Loinaz, but her appeal was denied.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with the Arbitral Office of the NLRC. The petitioner alleged that her employment record as an officer and staff had always been beyond par and was not tainted with any fraud or anomaly. When the incidents took place, she was barely two months as Service Officer of the Ayala Avenue Branch's Trading Section, and she was hardly familiar with any bank client, not to mention the enormous volume of transactions handled by the said BPI branch. Being new in her position, she had yet to adjust to the system in place. Nonetheless, she followed the policies and procedural control prior to affixing her initials as approving authority; hence, petitioner asserted that her dismissal was grossly disproportionate as a penalty. On the other hand, respondent asserted that petitioner's dismissal is legal.

The LA held that the dismissal of petitioner was illegal that petitioner cannot be considered a managerial employee, and that her dismissal on grounds of gross negligence and breach of trust was unjustified. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the decision of the LA. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA but the CA dismissed her petition holding that petitioner was holding a highly confidential position, as Assistant Branch Manager, in the banking industry, which required extraordinary diligence among its employees. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Is petitioner's dismissal from employment valid?

HELD: Accordingly, the findings of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC that petitioner's dismissal was for a valid cause is proper. In the case at bar, respondent dismissed petitioner from her employment on grounds of gross negligence and breach of trust reposed on her by respondent under Article 282 (b) and (c) of the Labor Code.Gross negligence connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. On the other hand, the basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the employees concerned hold a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the employer's loss of confidence in the employee.

The test of supervisory or managerial status depends on whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.

In this case, petitioner holds a managerial status since she is tasked to act in the interest of her employer as she exercises independent judgment when she approves pre-termination of USD CDs or the withdrawal of deposits. In fact, petitioner admitted the exercise of independent judgment when she explained that as regards the pre-termination of the USD CDs of Uymatiao and Caluag, the transactions were approved on the basis of her independent judgment that the signatures in all the documents presented to her by the traders matched, as shown in her reply dated April 23, 2002 to respondent's memorandum asking her to explain the unauthorized pre-terminations/withdrawals of U.S. dollar deposits in the BPI Ayala Avenue Branch.

Further, the petitioner admitted that she did not call the depositors to appear before her, although she performed other procedures to determine whether the subject transactions were with the depositors' authorization. She did not determine if it was really Uymatiao and Caluag who were pre-terminating their respective USD CD, as she based the identification of the said clients from their matching signatures on the original certificate on file with the branch, withdrawal slips and signature cards. Moreover, as stated by respondent, petitioner did not require that the original certificates of time deposit in the possession of Uymatiao and Caluag be surrendered to the bank when the rolled-over certificates were pre-terminated.

In that regard, petitioner was remiss in the performance of her duty to approve the pre-termination of certificates of deposits by legitimate depositors or their duly-authorized representatives, resulting in prejudice to the bank, which reimbursed the monetary loss suffered by the affected clients. Hence, respondent was justified in dismissing petitioner on the ground of breach of trust. As long as there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position, a managerial employee may be dismissed.