GR 167716; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167716 ; March 23, 2006
PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioner, vs. ELSIE ESCUDERO MANTAL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Elsie Escudero Mantal was a regular accounting clerk at petitioner Premiere Development Bank’s Cubao branch. On November 24, 2000, her immediate superior, Branch Manager Rosario Detalla, instructed her to inform any inquirer that a bank guarantee for GIA Fuel was “OKAY NA,” pending some documents. Later that day, a representative from Filpride Energy Corporation, Emmie Crisostomo, called to verify if GIA Fuel had an account and if the bank guarantee signed by Detalla was in order. Mantal checked the computer files, confirmed the account, and, following Detalla’s instruction, affirmed the bank guarantee. It was later discovered the guarantee was spurious.
Following the incident, Mantal was placed under preventive suspension and later investigated. Detalla admitted to issuing the falsified bank guarantee and subsequently resigned. Mantal was asked to resign but refused. She was then served a Notice of Termination dated December 22, 2000. She filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, but the NLRC reversed the decision. The Court of Appeals subsequently reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, prompting the bank’s petition to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Mantal was validly suspended and dismissed from her employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling the dismissal was illegal. The legal logic centered on the requirements for a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence or gross negligence. For loss of trust to be a valid cause, the breach must be willful, founded on clearly established facts, and related to the performance of the employee’s duties. Gross negligence, to warrant dismissal, must be both gross and habitual, implying a want of care and repeated failure.
The Court found these elements absent. Mantal’s act of confirming the bank guarantee was a single instance of following a direct, seemingly regular order from her immediate supervisor. There was no evidence of conspiracy, wrongful intent, or personal benefit. Her job as an accounting clerk involved processing deposits and withdrawals, not evaluating bank guarantees; thus, the infraction was not related to her core functions. Her verification of the client’s account via computer demonstrated a degree of diligence. Consequently, her isolated act did not constitute serious misconduct or gross and habitual negligence justifying dismissal. The termination violated her constitutional right to security of tenure, entitling her to reinstatement, full backwages, and attorney’s fees.