GR 50459; (August, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 50459 August 25, 1989
LEONARDO D. SUARIO, petitioner, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Davao Branch or The Manager/Cashier and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leonardo D. Suario, an employee of Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) since 1969, requested a six-month leave of absence without pay in March 1976 to undertake a pre-bar review in Manila. He alleged that the then branch manager, Armando Guilatco, verbally assured him there would be no problem with the request. However, a new manager, Vicente Casino, later informed him that the Head Office approved only a 30-day leave. Suario claimed Casino advised him to avail of the 30 days and proceed to Manila, assuring him the full request would ultimately be granted. Relying on this, Suario filed for the 30-day leave and went to Manila.
In August 1976, Suario received a letter from BPI ordering him to report back for work, as his request for an extended leave was disapproved. The letter stated failure to report would be considered a resignation. Suario did not return, citing the considerable expenses already incurred in Manila and his belief that the leave would be granted. BPI subsequently processed his termination on the ground of abandonment. Suario later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking not only separation pay but also substantial actual, moral, and exemplary damages.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages arising from his alleged illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the claim for damages, sustaining the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court found no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or malice on the part of BPI officials in denying Suario’s extended leave request and subsequently terminating his employment. The verbal assurances given by the managers were personal opinions, not binding commitments, and were given with the petitioner’s welfare in mind. The bank officials were not shown to have intended to deceive Suario; they were merely following company policy as dictated by higher authorities.
The Court emphasized that the mere denial of a leave request and the adverse result of termination do not automatically constitute a wrongful act warranting damages. Citing Rubio v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a wrongful act, fraud, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to prove such malice. BPI acted in accordance with law, having applied for a clearance to terminate and furnishing Suario a copy. Suario, aware as early as May 1976 that only a 30-day leave was approved, chose to continue his review without opposing the application. The bank’s referral of his status inquiry to the personnel department was a procedural formality, not an act meant to give false hope. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter correctly dismissed the claim for damages for lack of sufficient basis. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.