BDO v. Dompor (G.R. No. 163293; December 8, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: EQUITABLE PCI BANK (Now BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.), Petitioner, v. CASTOR A. DOMPOR, Respondent. Consolidated with G.R. No. 163297. BDO v. Dompor (G.R. No. 163293; December 8, 2010).
FACTS: Respondent was a branch manager of PCIBs (which came to be Equitable PCI Bank and now Banco De Oro) Makati Cinema Branch. On 1996, PCIBs discovered a number of PLDT dividend checks being sent for clearing by PCIB Makati Cinema Branch.It appears that respondent allowed Luz Fuentes, a client-depositor of PCIB Makati Cinema Branch, to deposit several second-endorsed PLDT dividend checks.
A special audit was then conducted whichshowed that 67,748 PLDT second-endorsed dividend checks were drawn on RCBC-Makati and made payable to different payee corporations and prominent personalities. These checks were thereafter fraudulently negotiated in favor of Fuentes and deposited to her account. The audit report also revealed striking similarities of strokes in the signatures of the different payees appearing on the checks.Thus,the audit committee recommended respondents dismissal from employment.
A hearing was held by the investigating. In a Memo, respondent was asked to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Respondent submitted his reply explaining that his acceptance of second-endorsed checks was solely for marketing considerations; that he only accepted checks which are payable to individuals and duly endorsed by the individual payees; and, that he made Fuentes sign an Agreement on Acceptance of Second-Endorsed Checks in order to protect the interest of the bank.
Respondent received a Memo dismissing him from employment on the grounds of serious policy violations, willful breach of trust, and loss of confidence, with further sanction of forfeiture of benefits and contingent restitution. Respondent thereafter submitted his appeal to reverse the managements decision, maintaining that he handled his duties with no ineptness or depravity and in accordance with his authority and responsibility consistent with 21 years of loyal and dedicated service.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.Respondent averred that his dismissal was without just cause as the alleged loss of trust and confidence is not substantial. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding respondents dismissal valid. Thereafter the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters Decision.However, the CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC and held that respondents dismissal was effected without due process of law and without just cause.ISSUES: Are the respondents dismissal valid on the ground of willful disobedience? Was the respondent accorded due process?
HELD: FIRST ISSUE: Respondent was validly dismissed on the grounds of willful disobedience and willful breach of trust under Article 282 of the Labor Code. To justify willful disobedience or insubordination as a valid ground for termination, "the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful [or] characterized by a wrongful or perverse attitude and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge."
While petitioners manual of procedures does not absolutely prohibit the negotiation or acceptance of second-endorsed checks for deposits, it does expressly disallow the acceptance of checks endorsed by corporations, societies, firms, etc. and checks with unusual endorsements. As shown by the records, this explicit policy was transgressed by respondent intentionally and willfully.It was not denied that respondent was instructed by management to stop accepting second-endorsed checks due to the irregularities attendant to the transactions with Fuentes. Despite such reasonable order, on two occasions, respondent unhesitatingly accommodated the request of Fuentes to accept her checks.
SECOND ISSUE: The requirements of procedural due process were complied with when petitioner sent a Memo to respondent informing him of the specific charges and giving him opportunity to air his side. Subsequently, in a letter, respondent was informed that on the basis of the results of the investigation conducted, his written explanation, the written explanation of other employees as well as the audit report, the management has decided to terminate him.The two-notice requirement, which includes a written notice of the cause of dismissal to afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself, and written notice of the decision to terminate him which states the reasons therefor, was thus complied with.
FACTS: Respondent was a branch manager of PCIBs (which came to be Equitable PCI Bank and now Banco De Oro) Makati Cinema Branch. On 1996, PCIBs discovered a number of PLDT dividend checks being sent for clearing by PCIB Makati Cinema Branch.It appears that respondent allowed Luz Fuentes, a client-depositor of PCIB Makati Cinema Branch, to deposit several second-endorsed PLDT dividend checks.
A special audit was then conducted whichshowed that 67,748 PLDT second-endorsed dividend checks were drawn on RCBC-Makati and made payable to different payee corporations and prominent personalities. These checks were thereafter fraudulently negotiated in favor of Fuentes and deposited to her account. The audit report also revealed striking similarities of strokes in the signatures of the different payees appearing on the checks.Thus,the audit committee recommended respondents dismissal from employment.
A hearing was held by the investigating. In a Memo, respondent was asked to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Respondent submitted his reply explaining that his acceptance of second-endorsed checks was solely for marketing considerations; that he only accepted checks which are payable to individuals and duly endorsed by the individual payees; and, that he made Fuentes sign an Agreement on Acceptance of Second-Endorsed Checks in order to protect the interest of the bank.
Respondent received a Memo dismissing him from employment on the grounds of serious policy violations, willful breach of trust, and loss of confidence, with further sanction of forfeiture of benefits and contingent restitution. Respondent thereafter submitted his appeal to reverse the managements decision, maintaining that he handled his duties with no ineptness or depravity and in accordance with his authority and responsibility consistent with 21 years of loyal and dedicated service.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.Respondent averred that his dismissal was without just cause as the alleged loss of trust and confidence is not substantial. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding respondents dismissal valid. Thereafter the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters Decision.However, the CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC and held that respondents dismissal was effected without due process of law and without just cause.ISSUES: Are the respondents dismissal valid on the ground of willful disobedience? Was the respondent accorded due process?
HELD: FIRST ISSUE: Respondent was validly dismissed on the grounds of willful disobedience and willful breach of trust under Article 282 of the Labor Code. To justify willful disobedience or insubordination as a valid ground for termination, "the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful [or] characterized by a wrongful or perverse attitude and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge."
While petitioners manual of procedures does not absolutely prohibit the negotiation or acceptance of second-endorsed checks for deposits, it does expressly disallow the acceptance of checks endorsed by corporations, societies, firms, etc. and checks with unusual endorsements. As shown by the records, this explicit policy was transgressed by respondent intentionally and willfully.It was not denied that respondent was instructed by management to stop accepting second-endorsed checks due to the irregularities attendant to the transactions with Fuentes. Despite such reasonable order, on two occasions, respondent unhesitatingly accommodated the request of Fuentes to accept her checks.
SECOND ISSUE: The requirements of procedural due process were complied with when petitioner sent a Memo to respondent informing him of the specific charges and giving him opportunity to air his side. Subsequently, in a letter, respondent was informed that on the basis of the results of the investigation conducted, his written explanation, the written explanation of other employees as well as the audit report, the management has decided to terminate him.The two-notice requirement, which includes a written notice of the cause of dismissal to afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself, and written notice of the decision to terminate him which states the reasons therefor, was thus complied with.