G.R. No. L-23921 August 29, 1969
RIZALINA G. GALSIM and her husband BENIGNO C. GALSIM, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Rizalina G. Galsim was a paying teller at the Philippine National Bank (PNB) until her dismissal effective December 11, 1952. On that day, receiving teller Deogracias Pauco approached her and asked for money. Galsim thought he borrowed P10 but he clarified it was P10,000. Without inquiring into his purpose or requiring him to sign the supporting Teller’s Account Ticket (PNB General Form No. 34-B) as required by bank regulations, she handed him a bundle of P100 bills amounting to P10,000, presuming he needed it for customer exchanges. After waiting 10-15 minutes, she went to his cage, discovered he had not timed in that day, and eventually reported the incident to an assistant cashier after a delay. She later confronted Pauco, who denied receiving the money. This resulted in a P10,000 shortage in her cash accountability. Both were suspended. PNB investigations found Galsim guilty of gross negligence for violating regulations by not securing a receipt and delaying her report. The NBI investigation concluded Pauco was solely to blame, having lost the money in a rigged gambling game, and recommended Galsim’s reinstatement. The PNB Board of Directors, by Resolution 668, recognized Galsim acted in good faith and that lending between tellers was a sanctioned practice, but held her failure to have the required forms accomplished constituted negligence, making her liable for the loss. The Board dismissed Pauco and required Galsim to resign. She refused. PNB sued her for recovery of the P10,000, but the Court of First Instance and later the Court of Appeals exonerated her from liability. A criminal case for qualified theft against her was also dismissed. Her efforts at reinstatement failed, leading to the present suit for reinstatement, back salaries, and damages.

ISSUE

Is Rizalina G. Galsim entitled to reinstatement to her position as paying teller at PNB?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. As a PNB employee, Galsim was not subject to the Civil Service Law, and the bank’s board of directors had the right to appoint and remove employees under its charter. While an employer’s prerogative to dismiss must not be exercised abusively, dismissal for loss of confidence is valid if there is basis. The Court held that Galsim’s failure to comply with bank regulations by not requiring Pauco to sign the necessary receipt forms, despite the established practice and her knowledge of the rules, constituted gross negligence. This failure facilitated the loss and provided sufficient ground for the bank to lose trust and confidence in her. Her subsequent exoneration from civil liability and the dismissal of the criminal case did not automatically entitle her to reinstatement, as the employer’s loss of confidence, based on her acts inimical to its interests, remained justified. Reinstatement would be irreconcilable with the trust inherent in an employment relationship, especially for a position involving access to cash.