G.R. No. 101372 November 13, 1992
PILIPINAS BANK, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NATALE JEMINA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Natale Jemina was the Assistant Branch Manager of the Binondo Branch of petitioner Pilipinas Bank. His duties included custody over all cash and properties inside the vault, bundle-counting of the cash-in-vault at the close of banking hours in the presence of the Manager or a designated substitute witness, and signing the Cash Proof Sheet after counting and counter-verification. On November 18, 1986, a cash shortage of P100,000.00 was discovered in the vault. After an investigation, both Jemina and the Bank Manager, Roberto D. Ilagan, were dismissed on grounds of violation of the Bank’s Code of Offenses and loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Arbiter sustained Ilagan’s dismissal but declared Jemina’s dismissal illegal, ordering payment of one year’s backwages and separation pay. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The petitioner Bank’s version asserts Jemina was gravely remiss for not conducting a bundle-count in the presence of a witness, making no formal turnover of cash accountabilities, and failing to follow counter-verification procedures on November 17, 1986. Jemina countered that on November 17, the Branch Manager was absent, and he, as the official custodian, sorted and bundle-counted the cash in the presence of the Current Account Bookkeeper and distributing clerk due to an early dismissal announcement for a transportation strike. He deposited the cash in the vault witnessed by his staff, had the vault’s closing witnessed by a security guard, and submitted to a body search. The Cash-In-Vault Report for November 17 was verified by the Branch Manager the next day. The shortage was discovered at 11:00 a.m. on November 18, two hours after the bank opened, while Jemina was absent attending a meeting at the Head Office.

ISSUE

Whether private respondent Natale Jemina was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties, warranting his dismissal on grounds of loss of confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, affirming the NLRC’s resolution with modification. The petitioner Bank failed to present substantial evidence directly showing Jemina’s participation in the loss. His failure to counter-verify the cash was sufficiently explained by the Manager’s absence and the circumstances of the transportation strike. He performed prudent alternative measures by having staff witness the counting and depositing, and by having the vault closing witnessed and undergoing a body search. The verification of the Cash-In-Vault Report by the Branch Manager the next day indicated the amounts tallied. The shortage was discovered two hours after the bank opened on a day Jemina was absent, leaving various possibilities for the loss. Loss of confidence must be founded on facts established by substantial evidence, not on suspicion, conjecture, or speculation. The employer’s evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish facts reasonably causing loss of confidence. The order for payment of backwages was modified to not exceed three years from dismissal, without qualification and deduction, plus severance pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations.