GR 142668; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142668 ; August 31, 2004
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK and LUIS MA. ONGSIAPCO, petitioners, vs. RUBEN E. BASCO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ruben E. Basco, a former employee of petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) for 17 years, was dismissed and subsequently filed an illegal dismissal case. While the labor case was pending, Basco, then working as an insurance underwriter for a UCPB subsidiary, frequented the UCPB main office to solicit insurance policies from bank employees and discuss his case. Petitioner Luis Ma. Ongsiapco, UCPB First Vice-President, issued a memorandum instructing security to deny Basco access to all bank premises, citing his terminated status and the pending litigation. Basco, through counsel, requested reconsideration, arguing the ban curtailed his livelihood and was an abuse of right, especially as he remained a stockholder. UCPB denied the request, citing policies against solicitation and the need to protect client confidences.
On December 21, 1995, while visiting a bank officer, Basco was approached by a security guard who reminded him not to stay long, causing him embarrassment. Basco filed a complaint for damages against UCPB and Ongsiapco, claiming the access ban was malicious and caused him humiliation. The Regional Trial Court ruled in Basco’s favor, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced the damages to a nominal amount.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are liable for damages for prohibiting the respondent from entering the bank premises.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. The Court held that a banking institution, like UCPB, possesses the right to control access to its private premises. This right stems from its property rights and is essential for maintaining order, security, and confidentiality within its offices. The issuance of the memorandum was a legitimate exercise of this managerial prerogative. The bank’s policy of restricting non-employees, particularly to prevent solicitation which may disrupt operations, is a reasonable business practice.
The Court found no evidence of malice or bad faith on the part of the petitioners. The act of barring entry was a direct consequence of Basco’s terminated employment and his conduct of discussing his pending case with bank personnel. His status as a stockholder did not grant him an unqualified right to enter non-public areas of the corporate premises. Since the petitioners acted within their rights, the respondent suffered a damnum absque injuria (damage without legal wrong). Consequently, no basis for an award of damages, whether moral, exemplary, or nominal, existed. The filing of the complaint itself, absent proof of malicious intent, did not entitle the petitioners to a counterclaim for damages.