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.
SANCHEZ, J.:
Rizalina G. Galsim, a dismissed employee of the Philippine
National Bank (PNB for short), sued for reinstatement, recovery of back
salaries and damages.[1] The Court of First Instance of
Manila, after trial, dismissed the complaint, with costs against her. We are now to resolve plaintiffs’ appeal.
Concededly, plaintiff Rizalina G. Galsim was PNB’s paying teller with a monthly salary of P300 until
December 11, 1952 when her dismissal became effective.
The case stemmed from facts that follow:
On December 11, 1952 between 9:15 and 9:20 in the morning, one
Deogracias Pauco, a receiving teller at PNB’s Cage 19, approached his
co-employee, paying teller Rizalina Galsim, inside her Cage 12. Mrs. Galsim thought she heard Pauco borrowing
P10. Her answer was that she only had P2
with her. Upon hearing this, Pauco told her in Tagalog: “Hindi, P10,
000.00” (No, P10, 000.00). Without
inquiring into Pauco’s purpose, Mrs. Galsim took one bundle of P100 bills
amounting to P10, 000 and handed it to him.
She just presumed that Pauco would use the money for exchange requested
by customers. After ten or fifteen
minutes waiting for Pauco to deliver to her P10, 000 in smaller denominations,
she went to Pauco’s cage. She did not
find him there. Another teller told her
that Pauco might have merely stepped out.
Mrs. Galsim then checked Pauco’s time card at the bundy clock. She discovered to her dismay that he did not
time in on that day. Alarmed, she
decided to report the matter to Mr. Syquia, an assistant bank cashier. Syquia, however, was very busy. Mrs. Galsim did not report to Mr. Maramba,
also an assistant cashier, her excuse being that Mr. Syquia would be more
understanding. She was not able to talk
to Mr. Syquia until past 11:00 o’clock that morning. Informed of the incident, Syquia sent an
employee and a bank guard to the house of Pauco.
Shortly after 1:00 o’clock p.m., Mrs. Galsim met Pauco at a
drinking fountain in the bank’s premises.
Galsim asked Pauco in Tagalog: “Pau, saan mo dinala?” (Pau,
where did you take it?). Pauco angrily answered: “Bakit, mayroon ba akong
kinuha sa iyo?” (Why, did I
take anything from you?). She then
pleaded tearfully: “Pauco, bakit mo ako ginaganyan?” (Pauco, why are
you doing that to me?). Pauco shot back:
“Bakit, ano ang ginawa ko sa iyo? Bakit gaganyanin kita?” (Why, what
have I done to you? Why should I do that to you?). With that, he turned his back and left.
It was thus that Mrs. Galsim incurred a shortage of P10, 000 in
her cash accountability for that day.
Because of this, PNB Vice-President Juan D. Quintos suspended both
Galsim and Pauco on the same day, December 11.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was called in.
That same afternoon of December 11, PNB Auditor Conrado P.
Sevilla conducted an investigation. The next
day, December 12, he made a report of his findings to the PNB board of
directors. He opined that Mrs. Galsim
was guilty of gross negligence and violation of existing regulations. Bases therefor were her delay in reporting
the matter to her superiors and her failure to make Pauco sign a receipt, the
usual supporting Teller’s Account Ticket, PNB General Form No. 34-B, required
under existing bank regulations, considerÂing the fact that she did not get in
due time the corresponding cash in small denominations in exchange. Auditor Sevilla also mentioned that in a
written testimony Pauco denied having received the P10, 000 in P100 bills from
Mrs. Galsim. Further, Auditor Sevilla
said that there was an exchange teller for the purpose of effecting exchanges
of money. His recommendation: the two
tellers, Galsim and Pauco, be immediately suspended from the service and that
civil and/or criminal action be taken against either or both, as may be
warranted by the NBI findings,
On October 1, 1953, the NBI came out with its report of the
investigation. The NBI noted that Mrs.
Galsim’s version was the truth and that Pauco was solely to blame. The NBI detailed the information coming from
three informants whose identities were not divulged that on the same day, December
11, 1952, Pauco lost the P10, 000 in a rigged-up black lack game in a house at
Governor Forbes Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
The NBI found that Pauco “really did ‘borrow’ the P10, 000.00”
from Mrs. Galsim. It recommended that
Pauco be separated from the service without prejudice to whatever steps the PNB
may deem proper to take for the recovery of the P10, 000, and that Mrs.’ Galsim be reinstated.
A third separate investigation was conducted by PNB
Vice-President Leon Ancheta. He filed
his memorandum with the PNB board of directors on May 24, 1954. His conclusions were that Mrs. Galsim
contravened existing regulations and practices in the tellers’ division by
delivering to Pauco P10, 000 without requiring the accomplishment and delivery
of PNB General Forms 33-B and 34-B, and that it was not customary for a paying
teller to deliver cash to a receiving teller whose principal function was to
receive deposits from depositors.
Ancheta’s recommendation was to dismiss, effective as of the date of
suspension, not only Pauco but also Mrs. Galsim for the latter’s gross
negligence and violation of existing rules which made the loss possible.
Then came PNB board of directors’ Resolution 668 of June 21,
1954. The board recognized that Mrs.
Galsim acted in good faith; that the lending of cash by one teller to another
was a prevailing practice sanctioned by the bank; but that Mrs. Galsim’s fault
consisted in that she failed to have PNB Forms 33-B and 34-B accomplished as
evidence of the transfer of funds required by standing regulations; that such
failure on her part unquestionably constituted negligence; and that she was not
relieved from liability for the loss of the P10, 000. The PNB board thus dismissed Pauco from the
service and required Mrs. Galsim to resign.
It also directed the PNB Legal DepartÂment to file civil suit to recover
the P10, 000 against Galsim and/or Pauco and their sureties, if any, and to
study the feasibility of filing a criminal action against Pauco. Vice-President
Leon Ancheta wrote Mrs. Galsim on July 1, 1954.
There, he informed Mrs. Galsim of Resolution 668, and requested her to
submit her letter of resignation effective as of the date of her suspension,
without prejudice to any civil action the bank might deem proper. Mrs. Galsim did not comply.
On September 25, 1954, PNB sued Mrs. Galsim and her husband
Benigno C. Galsim to recover the amount of P10, 000.[2]
On January 12, 1955, judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of
Manila exonerating Mrs. Galsim from liability for the loss of the P10, 000 in
question. PNB ‘s appeal to the Court of
Appeals[3]
resulted in affirmance on May 26, 1956 of the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals’ judgment has since
become final.
Meanwhile, on April 25, 1955, following a preliminary investigation,
Assistant City Fiscal Arsenio Alcantara of Manila lodged with the Court of
First Instance of that city a criminal information for qualified theft against Mrs. Galsim
and Pauco.[4]
After the Court of Appeals’ judgment heretofore mentioned was rendered, Mrs.
Galsim moved in the trial court to have the criminal case against her
dismissed. Rejected, she lodged a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prelimÂinary injunction
in the Court of Appeals.[5]
On November 28, 1956, the Court of Appeals directed the trial court to dismiss
the criminal case against Mrs. Galsim upon the ground that the matter of the
latter’s responsibility for the loss of the P10, 000 was a question finally
passed upon and resolved in her favor; and that, accordingly, the civil case
raised a prejudicial question. Pursuant
to this judgment, the trial court dismissed the criminal case on January 8,
1957.[6]
Efforts at reinstatement exerted by plaintiff Rizalina G. Galsim
were futile. Hence, the present suit
adverted to at the start of this opinion.
Is Rizalina G. Galsim entitled to be reinstated to her posiÂtion
as paying teller? Her claim is that her dismissal was unwarÂranted, capricious
and arbitrary.
1. As a PNB employee, Mrs.
Galsim is not subject to the Civil Service Law.
Her position in the bank cannot be said to be a public office.[7]
Under Section 23 of PNB ‘s charter, Act 2612 (as amended by Acts 2747 and
2938), the bank’s board of directors concededly has the right to choose its
employees. Because, it is not shackled
by civil service limitations. This right
is comÂmonly referred to as the employer’s right to hire and fire.[8]
Said Section 23 reads in part:
“SEC. 23. Other officers
and employees, appointment and removal – Salaries
– Non–applicability of the Civil Service
Law.- All the other officers and employees of the Bank shall be
appointed and removed by the Board of DirecÂtors, on recommendation of the
President. Said officers and employees
shall not be subject to the Civil Service Law, and their duties and comÂpensation
shall be fixed by the President with the approval of the board of directors; x
x x.”
Of course, the employer’s prerogative to dismiss employÂees hired
without a definite period may be with or without cause.[9]
But if the manner in which such right is exercised is abusive, the employer
stands to answer to the dismissed employee for damages.[10]
An employer may charge an employee with a crime connected with the employee’s
duties and dismiss him. It has been
held, however, that an employee’s subsequent acquittal does not automatically
enÂtitle him to reinstatement. His
dismissal would still be proper if evidence is sufficient to show that the
employee has been guilty of a breach of trust or that the employer has ample
reason to distrust him,[11]
or that the employee is “guilty of acts inimical to the inteÂrests of his
employer and justifying loss of confidence in him.”[12]
An acquittal in a criminal case is not at all inconsistent with loss of
confidence. A quote from Philippine
Education Co., Inc. vs. Union of Philippine
Education Employees (NLU), L-13778, April 29, 1960, will
illustrate this point. Thus –
“The relation of employer and employee, specially where the
employee has access to the employer’s property in the form of articles and
merchandise for sale, necessarily involves trust and
confidence. If said merchandise
are lost and said loss is reasonably attributed to said employee,
and he is charged with theft, even if he is acquitted of the charge on
reasonable doubt, when the employer has lost
its confidence in him, it would be
highly unfair to require said employer
to continue employing him or to reinstate
him, for in that case, the former might find
it necessary for its protection to employ another person to watch and
keep an eye on him. In the present case, Carpio was refused
reinstatement not because of any unfair affiliation or activity or because the
company has been guilty of any unfair labor practice. As already stated, Carpio was convicted in
the Municipal Court and although he was acquitted on reasonable doubt in the
Court of First Instance, the company had ample reason to
distrust him. Under the
circumÂstances, we cannot in conscience require the comÂpany to reemploy or
reinstate him.”[13]
To be stressed then is
that for a dismissal for loss of conÂfidence to be warranted, there should
naturally be some basis therefor.[14]
2. Bearing in mind PNB’s right to dismiss
employees, a sequential question that crops up is whether or not good ground
exists for a valid dismissal of plaintiff Rizalina G. Galsim.
In our approach to this
problem, we are not to be shackled by the final judgment in the civil case for recovery arising out of the loss of
P10, 000. To be emphasized is
that the issue in the civil case filed by PNB against Mrs. Galsim is whether or
not the latter should be made to pay to the bank the amount of P10, 000, not
her reinstatement – which plaintiff Galsim herself concedes was not in issue
therein.[15] And, the Court of Appeals, in findÂing that
Mrs. Galsim was not liable for the payment of P10, 000, noted that –
“x x x Anyway, the use of PNB Forms Nos. 33-B and 34-B (Exhs.
C & C-1) was undoubtedly prescribed to avoid that the receiver might deny
the taking of the money. We realize that
the use of said PNB forms was most practical to prove
satisfactorily any delivery of money, yet, in the
case at bar it is of no sequence because the result of the investigation of the
National Bureau of InvestiÂgation convincingly showed, even to the satisfaction
of the Board of Directors of the Bank, that really Deogracias Pauco actually
received P10, 000.00 in a pack of P100 bills from Rizalina G. Galsim, which
money the former lost in a gambling game.”[16]
This brings us to a determination of whether or not basis for
loss of confidence exists to justify dismissal of Mrs. Galsim. Of interest here is Board of Directors
of the Philippine National Bank vs. Court
of Appeals, supra.
There, this Court directed reinstatement of Oscar Mella because he was
dismissed without due process. We left
open the question of disciplinary action which was not litigated therein. This Court in the Mella case made it
abundantly clear that: “The position of a paying teller does
not involve any confidence apart from the fact that
he handles the bank’s funds and deals with
its customers. Consequently, the loss of
confidence to be a ground of dismissal necessarily is in connection
with the handling of the bank’s fund and his dealings with the bank’s
customers.”[17]
And, plaintiff Galsim herein – a paying teller – handles the bank’s funds and
deals with its cusÂtomers.
A paying teller in the PNB is entrusted with considerable sums of
money. Proof of this is that at the
start of banking business on December 11, 1952, the date of the incident, Mrs.
Galsim had a working amount of P86, 684.43 for which she was accountable. Handling of bank funds is a serious
matter. A teller’s relationship with the
bank is necessarily one of trust and confidence. The teller, as trustee, is expected to
possess a high degree of fidelity to trust.
A cardinal essential in that job is utmost diligence and care in the
handling of cash. A teller cannot afford
to relax vigilance in the performance of his duties.
Let us take a look at the facts.
That morning of December 11, Pauco approached Mrs. Galsim. She thought he was borrowing money. She told him that she only had P2. But then Pauco made it plain to her that he
needed P10, 000. She gave him the P10,
000 without as much as inquiring into Pauco’s purpose. Of course, she said that she presumed
that Pauco would use the money “for exchange as requested by
customers.”[18]
But the NBI found that Pauco “really did ‘borrow’ the P10, 000.00.”
Nor can Mrs. Galsim give as reason that that money in P100 bills
was in exchange for smaller denominations.
Common sense dictates that if such
were the purpose, considering the big amount of money involved, she should have
required from Pauco right then and there to produce the equivalent. But she did not. She did not even take the precaution to
immediately follow Pauco to his cage to get back the corresponding amount in
exchange. Failing to receive from Pauco
the money in exchange upon deliÂvery by her to him of P10, 000, prudence
required of her at least to get some evidence that the money was with
Pauco. Not that she was unfamiliar with
what was to be done. The bank provided
PNB General Forms 33-B and 34-B precisely to make sure that transfers of money
from teller to teller could properly be traced.
Besides, the money was taken almost immediately after the start
of banking hours. She knew that a big
sum, P10, 000, was involved. She should
have been on guard. Business had just
begun. These facts should have opened
her eyes to make her inquire from Pauco why he needed that much amount of
money. She knew that Pauco was a
receiving teller whose principal function was to receive deposits from bank
depositors. She should have known, too,
that there was at the time an exchange teller in the bank whose duty was to
exchange money. That she did not inquire
from Pauco the why and wherefore of the P10, 000 is a lapse, a costly lapse
indeed. In reality, there was no need
for her to turn over such a large sum.
Because, in the course of business, Pauco would be receiving deposits
from time to time which he could use for exchange purposes.
Her failure to obtain receipt from Pauco has had its harmful
consequences. That gave Pauco a chance
to say, when confronted shortly after delivery of the money, that he had not
gone to the bank except at past 10:00 o’clock in the morning to ask permission
from assistant cashier Maramba not to enter office that day; and that he did not receive the said amount of
P10, 000 from Mrs. Galsim. It emboldened Pauco to pocket the P10,
000. Pauco could not have had the temerity of appropriating the money,
carrying it away and gambling
with it. The reason being that Pauco
would have known that had the receipt been signed, there would exist conclusive
evidence against him. The loss could
have been averted.
Surely, it would be most unfair to compel the bank to continue
employing Mrs. Galsim. Reinstatement
under the circumstances is neither sound in reason nor just in principle. It is irreconcilable with trust and confidence. That confidence has been lost. And justifiably, because by giving the money
in violation of bank rules, she actually did cause prejudice to the bank. That act was inimical to the interests of the
bank. No one may begrudge the bank in
its well-grounded belief that an unfortunate situation such as that which
happened on DecemÂber 11 may in the future be repeated if her services were
retained.
These are reasons potent enough to bar plaintiff Galsim’s demand
for reinstatement.
We accordingly vote to affirm the judgment under review.
Costs against plaintiffs-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and
Barredo, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J., is on official
leave.
[1]
Civil Case 42755, Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled “Rizalina G.
Galsim and her husband Benigno C. Galsim, PlainÂtiffs, versus Philippine
National Bank, Defendant.”
[2]
Civil Case 24145, Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled “Philippine
National Bank, Plaintiff, versus Rizalina G. Galsim and Benigno C.
Galsim, Defendants.”
[3]
CA-G.R. 14714-R.
[4]
Criminal Case 31114, Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled “People
of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Mrs. Rizalina G. Galsim and
Deogracias Pauco, Accused.”
[5]
CA-G.R. 18208-R, Court of Appeals, entitled “Rizalina G. Galsim,
Petitioner, versus Hon. Fidel Ibañez, Judge of the Sala or Branch No. IX
of the Court of First Instance of Manila; Philippine National Bank; and the
Fiscal of the City of Manila, Respondents.”
[6]
The Court of First Instance of Manila, in the criminal case for qualified theft,
found Deogracias Pauco guilty thereof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, on
October 24, 1963, affirmed the conviction with modification only as to penalty
(CA-G.R. 03096-Cr)
[7]
Board of Directors of the Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
(1961), 2 SCRA 561, 567.
[8]
Gutierrez vs. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., 105 Phil. 9, 21.
[9]
Philippine Refining Co., Inc. vs. Garcia (1966), 18 SCRA 107, 111.
[10]
Id., at p. 112.
[11]
National Labor Union, Inc. vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 73 Phil.
279, 282. See also: Gatmaitan vs. Manila Railroad Co.
(1967), 21 SCRA 191, 193.
[12]
National Organization of Laborers and Employees (NOLE) vs. Roldan, 95
Phil. 727, 733.
[13]
Emphasis supplied.
[14]
See: Corpus vs. Cuaderno, G.R. No. L-23721, March 31, 1965.
[15]
Plaintiffs’ brief, pp. 110-111.
[16]
Except for the word “actually”, emphasis has been supplied.
[17]
At p. 566; emphasis supplied.
[18]
NBI Report, Exh. C-1, Folder of Exhibits, p. 10.