GR 172812; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172812 ; February 12, 2008
AMELIA R. ENRIQUEZ and REMO SIA, petitioners, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and LUIS A. PUENTEVELLA, AVP, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Amelia Enriquez and Remo Sia were the Branch Manager and Assistant Branch Manager, respectively, of BPI-Bacolod Singcang Branch. On December 27, 2002, a teller, Geraldine Descartin, reported a cash shortage of P36,000. She later claimed it was due to her mother-in-law’s failure to sign a withdrawal slip for the same amount. Petitioners directed the submission of a memorandum and allowed Descartin to leave to secure the signature, which she did, regularizing the transaction that same evening. Petitioners considered the matter resolved. However, in February 2003, a co-teller, Evelyn Fregil, reported the incident to management, alleging a cover-up. An investigation ensued, concluding that petitioners failed to report the shortage and assisted in concealing Descartin’s act of temporarily borrowing bank funds. After administrative proceedings, petitioners were dismissed on September 3, 2003, for breach of trust and confidence and dishonesty. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of petitioners, who were managerial employees, on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence was valid.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. As managerial employees, petitioners held positions of utmost trust. The employer’s right to dismiss on this ground requires only that the loss of confidence be based on substantial evidence and not on mere caprice. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the bank’s conclusion. Petitioners failed to immediately report a significant cash shortage, a serious irregularity. Instead, they facilitated the late posting of a transaction to cover it, bypassing proper procedures. Their act of approving the transaction after banking hours to rectify the teller’s shortage, without an immediate report to higher management, constituted a willful breach of the trust reposed in them. The employer’s investigation was fair, and petitioners were given ample opportunity to explain. The law does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt in administrative cases. The totality of the evidence established that petitioners’ actions eroded the trust essential to their positions, justifying dismissal.