GR 188722; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188722 ; February 1, 2012
BANK OF LUBAO, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROMMEL J. MANABAT and the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents.
FACTS
Rommel J. Manabat was employed by Bank of Lubao as a Market Collector and later as an encoder. An audit in November 2004 revealed a misappropriation of approximately ₱3 million at the Sta. Cruz Extension Office, where Manabat worked with teller Susan Lingad. The audit discovered deposits entered in clients’ passbooks but not in the bank’s books, and transactions posted then reversed as “error in posting.” The bank required Manabat to explain. He asserted that Lingad sometimes used the computer while he was on errands. After an administrative hearing, the bank’s committee concluded Manabat conspired with Lingad. The bank filed qualified theft charges against both and terminated Manabat on September 1, 2005, for serious misconduct and willful breach of trust.
Manabat filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The criminal charge against him was later dismissed. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal, citing the bank’s failure to present substantial evidence, notably disregarding an unsigned audit report. The NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals also denied the bank’s petition, upholding the illegal dismissal finding but awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and backwages until the decision’s finality. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Manabat’s dismissal illegal and in its computation of backwages.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the illegal dismissal but modified the backwages computation. The employer bears the burden to prove just cause for dismissal by substantial evidence. Here, the bank failed to discharge this burden. The audit reports implicating Manabat were executed after his dismissal and were properly accorded minimal evidentiary weight by the lower tribunals. The dismissal of the criminal case for qualified theft, while not conclusive, further weakened the bank’s position, as the standard of proof in administrative proceedings is merely substantial evidence, which was not met.
On the award, the Court held that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was proper due to the antagonism between the parties. However, the CA erred in awarding backwages until the finality of its decision. Backwages are granted from illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. Since the bank offered reinstatement on May 4, 2007, pursuant to the Labor Arbiter’s order (which was immediately executory), Manabat’s entitlement to backwages ceased on that date, not on the finality of the CA decision. The bank’s obligation was only to reinstate him pending appeal; his refusal to accept the offer did not extend the backwages period. Thus, backwages are computed from September 1, 2005, until May 4, 2007. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for final computation.