G.R. No. 96745. July 2, 1992
MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BOSTON BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Manuel Melgar dela Cruz was the Branch Manager of the Boston Bank of the Philippines (BBOP), Arroceros Branch. On October 14, 1985, he picked up a cash deposit of P200,000 from Atty. Bernardita Santos but did not physically count the money, contrary to bank policy. The teller validated the deposit slip for P200,000 but later discovered an actual shortage of P5,000. The teller re-validated the slip for P195,000, and the ledger was adjusted accordingly. Atty. Santos complained, insisting she gave P200,000. Without reporting the shortage to the Head Office or obtaining prior authorization, dela Cruz directed his staff to credit Atty. Santos’s account with P5,000, covering the amount by offsetting it against a long-outstanding accounts payable of another client and overstating the Branch Income Trading Gain, violating bank Operation Circular No. 002-85. In January 1986, to eliminate a P10,000 debit float item that would expose the cover-up, dela Cruz authorized further overstatement of the Trading Gain. An anonymous tip led to an investigation by the bank’s Internal Audit Division. Dela Cruz admitted the shortage and cover-up in his written explanations. The Committee on Fraud and Shortages also found he altered maturity dates of Time Deposit Certificates for relatives and friends to give them higher interest rates. The Committee recommended his termination. On May 26, 1987, the bank dismissed him for loss of trust and confidence. Dela Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding backwages, separation pay, and other benefits. The NLRC reversed the arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaint but ordering payment of P50,000 in withheld benefits. Dela Cruz petitioned for review.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor arbiter’s decision and upholding dela Cruz’s dismissal for loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The Court held that dela Cruz was afforded due process, as he was given full opportunity to explain his side through written submissions and reviews. His acts—concealing the cash shortage, covering it up by falsifying accounting entries, and fraudulently altering time deposit certificates—constituted serious dishonesty and mismanagement, violating banking rules and regulations. As a bank branch manager holding a fiduciary position, these acts justified loss of trust and confidence. The Court emphasized that the law protects employees but does not authorize oppression or self-destruction of the employer. Thus, dismissal was valid, and reinstatement would be inimical to the bank’s interests.