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 respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) since 1969, requested a six-month leave of absence without pay in March 1976 to undertake pre-bar review in Manila. He alleged that initial verbal assurances from bank managers led him to believe his request would be approved. However, the bank’s Head Office officially granted only a 30-day leave. Despite this, Suario proceeded to Manila based on the managers’ personal encouragements. In August 1976, he received a letter from BPI ordering him to report back for work, warning that failure would be considered a resignation. Suario did not return, citing incurred review expenses. 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.
The Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay but denied the claim for damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. Suario, acting as his own counsel, elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review, insisting that the bank officials acted in bad faith by giving false assurances about his leave request, which constituted illegal dismissal and entitled him to damages.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent bank officials acted with bad faith or malice in denying the petitioner’s leave request and terminating his employment, thereby warranting an award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the NLRC’s denial of damages. The Court held that no bad faith or fraud attended the bank officials’ actions. The verbal assurances given to Suario were personal opinions that could not bind the bank, especially as they were subject to reconsideration by higher authorities and contingent on company policy. The officials’ conduct did not exhibit an intent to deceive; they likely believed the request would be granted but were ultimately constrained by policy. The mere denial of the leave request and the subsequent termination, which was processed after an application for clearance with the Ministry of Labor and notice to Suario, did not automatically constitute a wrongful act justifying damages.
The Court emphasized that moral and exemplary damages require proof of a wrongful act, fraud, bad faith, or malice. Citing Rubio v. Court of Appeals, the ruling reiterated that the adverse result of an action does not per se make it wrongful. Suario failed to substantiate any malicious intent. The bank followed legal procedure for termination, and Suario, despite knowing the official 30-day grant, chose not to oppose the application for clearance nor return to work. The referral of his status inquiry to the personnel department was a routine procedure, not an act of wantonness. Thus, with no sufficient basis for damages, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.