GR 156994; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156994 . August 31, 2005.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, vs. RAMON A. UY, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ramon A. Uy was a long-time loans clerk at BPI’s Tabaco Branch. In November 1996, he processed a ₱4,000,000.00 loan for spouses Simeon and Alicia Sy and a separate ₱2,500,000.00 back-to-back loan for depositor Evangeline Ong-Sy, who offered her savings account as collateral. Ong-Sy subsequently pre-terminated the Sy spouses’ loan with a check that was later dishonored. She also made two large withdrawals from her savings account, which Uy processed and which were approved by the bank manager and cashier. Ong-Sy’s check in payment of her own loan was also dishonored.
BPI placed Uy under preventive suspension and later terminated him for fraud and loss of trust and confidence, alleging he facilitated a ₱4,000,000.00 availment under the Sy spouses’ credit line without their authority. BPI also filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Uy. The Municipal Trial Court, however, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, a dismissal affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor. Uy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Bank of the Philippine Islands validly dismissed Ramon A. Uy on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
RULING
No, the dismissal was invalid. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on willful breach of trust founded on established facts. The Supreme Court found BPI failed to substantiate its claim of fraud against Uy. The alleged unauthorized drawing against the Sy spouses’ loan was not proven, and the bank’s own evidence showed the loan documents were regular and signed by the borrowers. The Court emphasized that Uy, as a loans clerk, only processed and recommended approval; the final authority to approve the loans and subsequent withdrawals rested with the bank manager and cashier, who also approved all the questioned transactions.
The criminal complaint’s dismissal for lack of probable cause further weakened the bank’s position. The Court ruled that loss of confidence cannot be based on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated accusations. Since Uy’s actions were within his duties and subject to higher approval, and no proof of conspiracy with the client or personal benefit was established, BPI did not have sufficient legal basis to dismiss him. The termination was deemed illegal.