GR 151026; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151026 ; August 25, 2003
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (now METROBANK), Petitioner, vs. The Honorable COURT OF APPEALS and GERARDO A. GARCIA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Solidbank employed respondent Gerardo A. Garcia as a documentation clerk and signature control, the highest rank for a check verifier. In April 1992, Garcia cleared three checks totaling ₱566,000.00, which were later discovered to be forgeries. After investigation, Solidbank terminated Garcia’s employment on July 2, 1992, for gross negligence and serious misconduct. Garcia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, declaring the dismissal illegal. However, the NLRC limited Garcia’s backwages to one year, finding he was “not entirely faultless” due to some neglect in his duties. Garcia did not appeal this limitation.
The Court of Appeals, upon Solidbank’s petition, affirmed the illegal dismissal but modified the NLRC award by granting Garcia full backwages. The appellate court found no evidence to support the NLRC’s finding of neglect. Solidbank filed this petition, arguing Garcia’s dismissal was valid due to gross negligence and that the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the award.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting full backwages despite the NLRC’s finding of some neglect on Garcia’s part, which limited his backwages to one year.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, reinstating the NLRC’s award. The Court held that Garcia’s dismissal was illegal due to Solidbank’s failure to prove gross negligence. The acquittal in the related criminal case for estafa through falsification, based on reasonable doubt, bolstered this conclusion, as the standard of proof in administrative cases is merely substantial evidence.
However, the Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding full backwages. The NLRC’s finding of “some sort of neglect” that justified limiting backwages to one year became final and binding because Garcia did not appeal that specific finding. His failure to contest the limited award constituted an admission of his partial fault and an acceptance of the one-year backwages. Consequently, the NLRC’s decision on this matter could no longer be modified.
As Garcia prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, he is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service. His backwages are limited to one year only, in accordance with the final and unappealed NLRC resolution. The Supreme Court thus reinstated the NLRC’s award.