G.R. No. 70140 , July 24, 1990
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and BERNARDO REBANO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Bernardo Rebano, a senior bookkeeper at PNB Buendia Branch, was charged with serious violations of bank rules for allowing withdrawals against uncollected deposits and posting withdrawals without the required approval of authorized branch officials. These violations facilitated a large-scale check-kiting operation by an account holder, Monahar B. Hira, which resulted in substantial expected losses for the bank. The PNB Board of Directors dismissed Rebano from service with forfeiture of all benefits. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the dismissal, finding Rebano negligent for disregarding a specific memorandum requiring officer approval for such transactions and for posting ninety-two unauthorized check withdrawals.
Rebano appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court. While affirming his guilt for violating Central Bank and PNB rules, the appellate court modified the penalty. It ordered his reinstatement and reduced the penalty to a six-month suspension without pay, plus reimbursement of half his back salaries. The court considered mitigating circumstances, namely Rebano’s alleged good faith—believing he had implicit authorization from his manager—and the disparity between the severe penalty imposed on him and the lighter penalties given to other involved officers.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in reducing the penalty imposed on Bernardo Rebano from dismissal to a six-month suspension.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, setting aside the appellate court’s decision and reinstating the Civil Service Commission’s order of dismissal. The Court held that dismissal was the correct and proper penalty. While factual findings of guilt by the lower bodies were sustained, the legal error lay in the appellate court’s appreciation of mitigating circumstances to justify penalty reduction.
The Court rejected the claim of good faith. Rebano’s repeated violations—posting ninety-two checks without approval—constituted gross misconduct and demonstrated a pattern of neglect that negated good faith. His act of stamping “POSTED” was not a mere ministerial act; it signified the check was sufficiently funded and could be encashed, directly facilitating the unauthorized withdrawals. The disparity in penalties imposed on other employees, while noted, could not absolve Rebano of his individual culpability. His actions, standing alone, were grave enough to warrant dismissal. Under civil service rules and jurisprudence, gross misconduct in office is punishable by dismissal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the integrity of banking operations demands strict adherence to rules, and repeated violations by an employee in a position of trust justify the supreme penalty of termination.