GR L 75955; (October, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-75955 October 28, 1988
MARIA LINDA FUENTES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION and JOSE LAUREL IV, as its President, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Maria Linda Fuentes was employed as a teller at Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbanking). On May 28, 1982, acting as an overnight teller, she received a cash deposit of P200,000. After counting the money, she left the pile of cash exposed on her counter on two separate occasions to retrieve incomplete payroll checks for validation from her Chief Teller. Upon her return, she discovered that P50,000 was missing. The loss was reported, and after submitting her explanation, she was dismissed for gross negligence on June 3, 1983. Fuentes subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with reinstatement and backwages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. She elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner’s dismissal on the ground of gross negligence was justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was legal and justified. The Court applied the test of negligence, inquiring whether the petitioner used the reasonable care and caution an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. The circumstances revealed gross negligence. Petitioner violated the bank’s explicit operating procedure, as stated in its Teller’s Manual, which required cash to be secured in drawers and never left exposed. She left a substantial amount of money unattended and within easy reach, especially on a payday when many depositors were milling about, thereby breaching the high degree of fidelity and diligence required of a bank teller.
The Court rejected petitioner’s arguments. First, it held that any alleged contributory negligence by the bank in failing to conduct an immediate investigation was irrelevant, as it did not proximately cause the loss; the loss was directly and primarily due to petitioner’s own gross negligence. Second, the fact that she left her cage at the instance of the Chief Teller did not absolve her, as her responsibility over the entrusted cash remained paramount. The Court emphasized that the employer-employee relationship in a bank is one of trust and confidence. An employer cannot be compelled to continue employing a person guilty of gross negligence, as such continuance is patently inimical to the employer’s interest. The NLRC’s decision was affirmed, and the petition was dismissed.