G.R. No. 153784 October 25, 2005
Romeo C. Cadiz, Carlito Bongkingki and Prisco Gloria IV, Petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Commercial International Bank (Now Equitable PCIB), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Romeo Cadiz, Carlito Bongkingki, and Prisco Gloria IV were employees of Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) as a signature verifier, bookkeeper, and foreign currency clerk/bookkeeper-reliever, respectively. Anomalies surfaced when a depositor, Rosalina Alqueza, complained about the non-receipt of a $600 demand draft. An investigation revealed this draft, along with other checks, was fraudulently deposited into a foreign currency savings account (S/A No. 1083-4) under the name Sonia Alfiscar. A special audit uncovered that Cadiz had reserved this account, which was active from November 1987 to June 1988. The audit found numerous irregularities, including miscoded checks, forged signatures, unvalidated deposit slips, wrongful deposits of second-endorsed checks, and immediate withdrawals, with Bongkingki and Gloria posting many of the suspect deposit slips. Petitioners were served show-cause memoranda and subsequently dismissed for violating the bank’s Code of Discipline.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC’s finding that petitioners were dismissed for just cause, thereby reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling of illegal dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that petitioners were validly dismissed for just cause. The Court, while generally not a trier of facts, examined the competing factual findings between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. It found substantial evidence supporting the bank’s claim of serious misconduct. The Labor Arbiter erroneously characterized the petitioners’ acts—such as the deliberate miscoding of deposit slips to make funds immediately withdrawable—as mere “procedural inadequacies” attributable to the bank’s operational laxity. The Court held that these were not simple errors but constituted a deliberate scheme to divert depositors’ funds, amounting to fraud and serious misconduct. Employees in the banking sector, who are bound by high standards of diligence and fidelity, cannot use their employer’s procedural lapses as a shield for their own fraudulent acts. The bank duly observed procedural due process by issuing show-cause memoranda and considering petitioners’ written explanations before termination. Thus, the dismissal was for a just cause and executed with due process.