G.R. No. 199601 , November 23, 2015
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.), PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Josephine D. Gomez was a teller at the Domestic Airport Branch of PCIB. In January 1985, a certain Colin R. Harrington opened a savings account. The next day, two genuine bank drafts from the Bank of New Zealand, one payable to “C.R. Harrington” and another to “Servants C/C.R. Harrington,” were presented for deposit to Harrington’s account. Josephine, after seeking and receiving affirmative advice from her immediate supervisor, accepted the deposits. Later, an impostor representing himself as Harrington made withdrawals totaling ₱50,600.00. PCIB reimbursed Harrington for this amount. PCIB then conducted an investigation, found Josephine grossly negligent for violating operating procedures, and required her to pay ₱50,600.00 through deductions from her salary, allowances, bonuses, and profit sharing. PCIB began making these deductions, including a ₱200.00 salary deduction and 50% of her bonuses and profit sharing, even before formally notifying her of its findings. Josephine filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Makati, claiming PCIB abused its right by arbitrarily deducting from her compensation. The RTC ruled in favor of Josephine, awarding her actual, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. PCIB appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in finding its actions in wanton disregard of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code and in awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over Josephine’s complaint for damages.
2. Whether PCIB acted in bad faith, justifying the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees to Josephine.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA decision.
1. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction. Although the dispute arose from an employer-employee relationship, Josephine’s cause of action was based on a quasi-delict or tort under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code. Her complaint was anchored not on her dismissal or a labor dispute per se, but on the manner in which PCIB arbitrarily concluded she was negligent and commenced deductions from her salary in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. This cause of action had no reasonable connection to the claims under the Labor Code falling within the jurisdiction of labor tribunals; thus, jurisdiction properly lay with the regular civil courts.
2. On the merits, the Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which are binding in a Rule 45 petition. The evidence showed PCIB acted in bad faith. Bad faith was evident from PCIB’s actions: it started deducting from Josephine’s salary even before she received the memorandum finding her liable and demanding payment; it failed to respond to her letter questioning the basis of her liability; and it singled her out for responsibility despite the involvement of other bank personnel (her supervisor who approved the deposit and the foreign exchange supervision that converted the amounts). These acts constituted a willful and oppressive disregard of Josephine’s rights, contrary to morals and good customs under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, thereby justifying the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees.