G.R. No. 157028 ; January 31, 2006
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. LUIS B. BARRIENTOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Luis Barrientos was a branch manager for Metrobank. He was dismissed for serious misconduct based on allegations of facilitating fictitious accounts and involvement with an unauthorized credit union, Cebu North Road Investment (CNRI). Metrobank issued a memorandum detailing the charges, to which Barrientos submitted a written explanation. A conference was subsequently held. Metrobank found him guilty and terminated his employment. Barrientos filed an illegal dismissal complaint.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Barrientos, finding that Metrobank failed to substantiate the charges with clear and convincing evidence. The Arbiter noted that Barrientos lacked approving authority for one account when it was opened, that his personal account’s use for interbranch deposits was a common and tolerated practice, and that there was no proof he solicited investors for CNRI. The Arbiter also found a denial of due process for lack of a formal hearing. The NLRC affirmed the illegal dismissal finding but modified the awarded benefits and deleted damages, holding that due process was satisfied by the written explanation and conference.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC and the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the finding of illegal dismissal and the modified awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied Metrobank’s petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On the substantive aspect, the Court upheld the consistent factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals that Metrobank failed to prove by substantial evidence that Barrientos committed serious misconduct warranting dismissal. The charges were not supported by clear and convincing proof, as Barrientos’s actions were either within common banking practices, lacked his direct responsibility, or pertained to activities the bank had tolerated elsewhere. An employer bears the burden of proving just cause for dismissal, which Metrobank did not discharge.
Regarding procedural due process, the Court ruled that the twin-notice requirement was satisfied. The written explanation and the subsequent conference constituted a meaningful opportunity for Barrientos to be heard. The law does not require a trial-type hearing; a conference where the employee can explain his side suffices. Consequently, while the dismissal was illegal for lack of cause, the absence of a procedural due process violation justified the NLRC’s deletion of moral, exemplary, and nominal damages. The award of other proven benefits was likewise affirmed.