G.R. Nos. L-73131-32 August 31, 1988
FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RUFINO FAYTAREN and MARIA CRISTINA L. ZALDARRIAGA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Maria Cristina Zaldarriaga, Head Teller, and Rufino Faytaren, Assistant Branch Cashier, were employees of Far East Bank & Trust Company at its Plaza Moraga branch. They were terminated on March 16, 1971, following the encashment of a forged check for P30,000 on November 23, 1970. Bank rules required checks of P5,000 or more to be approved by at least two of three top officers. On the date of the transaction, only Branch Accountant Gregoria Legaspi initialed the check, as the Branch Manager was absent. Zaldarriaga claimed Faytaren presented the check to her, instructed her not to affix her teller’s stamp, and assured her the manager would approve it later. Faytaren denied this, asserting he presented a different check for P5,000. After investigation, both were dismissed. Zaldarriaga and Faytaren filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, which were consolidated for trial.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether Rufino Faytaren was illegally dismissed, warranting reinstatement and backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Intermediate Appellate Court’s finding that Faytaren was illegally dismissed, modifying only the award of backwages. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of evidence to prove Faytaren’s participation in the fraud, making his dismissal without just cause. The Court deferred to the appellate court’s factual conclusions, which noted: Faytaren had no connection to the issuance of the blank checkbook used for the forgery; his signature was absent from the forged check, and evidence suggested he refused to sign it; his testimony that he presented a different check was corroborated by a client; no other employee substantiated Zaldarriaga’s allegation against him; he had recently received a certificate of appreciation from the bank; the criminal charge against him was dismissed; and the bank’s investigation failed to afford him due process, violating labor rules requiring an opportunity to be heard. Given the lack of clear proof of wrongdoing, the dismissal was unlawful. Consequently, reinstatement with backwages was proper. However, applying prevailing jurisprudence, the Court limited the award of back salaries, emoluments, and fringe benefits to three years from the date of his termination on March 16, 1971, rather than the five years initially granted. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court was thus affirmed with this modification.