BPI CREDIT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BENJAMIN JOVELLANOS, RESPONDENTS.

The most frequently assaulted right of workers is their right to security
of tenure. The Constitution shields
this right against unjustified attacks. The petition at bench represents another attempt to negate this
constitutional right of workers to security of tenure. It cannot succeed.

The records show that private respondent Benjamin Jovellanos is
the Marketing Assistant of petitioner BPI Family Bank, Dagupan City
branch. Ricardo Torio worked as Credit
Investigator Appraiser in the same bank.

On July 8, 1987, a certain Alex Racimo executed an Affidavit
linking Jovellanos and Torio to certain anomalies, viz:

“(1) That I obtained a loan from the BPI Family Bank, Dagupan City in the
amount of P200,000.00;

(2) That in the processing of my application for this loan I had
dealt with RIC TORIO, an old acquaintance;

(3) That in the beginning when I was still
applying for a loan I was made to believe by RIC TORIO that I will not pay any
charges except the application fee in the
sum of P500.00, which still be refunded to me upon release of my approved loan;

(4) That when my loan was released the above
named person approached me and demanded from me something which they termed it
for the boys and he mentioned the name of BEN JOVELLANOS a co-employee at the
BPI Credit Corporation, Dagupan City;

(5) That out of gratitude I was handling to him
the sum of P1,000.00 but he ignored it and instead he told me that he ought to
charge five (5%) of the total amount of the approved loan, upon release, but
considering that we were friends, 2% would be enough;

(6) That I tried to bargain with him that he
accepts the P1,000.00 and just as soon as I sell my property in Dagupan, I will
give him the remaining P3,000.00, but he declined and turned his back towards
me;

(7) That I found it very strange because instead
of being refunded the amount of P500.00 which I paid as application fee, said
person is collecting from me a certain percentage of my approved loan; x x
x.”

Upon receipt of the affidavit, petitioner confronted respondent
Jovellanos on August 12, 1987. According to the petition, Gaspar Antonio de los Santos, AVP of
petitioner “xxx brought up the subject as he and Jovellanos were on
their way home from a staff presentation
at about 9:45 p.m.”^[1] It is also stated that Santos “xxx confronted Jovellanos about the
contents of the affidavit without naming Racimo as its author.”^[2] Respondent Jovellanos was also instructed to
report to the head office of the petitioner on August 17, 1987.

On August 17, 1987, petitioner alleged that de los Santos
“once more brought up the matter of the reported irregularities with
Jovellanos.”^[3]
On this occasion, according to petitioner, de los Santos “named Racimo and
read portions of his (Racimo’s) affidavit.”^[4]
Thereafter, de los Santos served the notice of preventive suspension on
Jovellanos signed by Socorro Lantin, another AVP of petitioner.^[5]
The notice reads:

“Please be
advised that pending investigation of the reported irregular transactions
pertaining to Real Estate Mortgage Loans of which you are CI-Appraiser with the
end in view of ascertaining degree of responsibility and/or extent of violation
of Bank policies and regulations as well as possible losses to the Bank, you
are hereby relieved of your duties and placed under preventive suspension effective
immediately.

In the meantime, you
are free to submit whatever explanation/statement you may have about the
incident or any information that could held in the probe of the reported
anomally.”

Respondent Jovellanos denied the charge
against him. He said he did not know
Racimo.

On August 20, 1987, respondent Jovellanos wrote a letter to
Lantin seeking to lift his preventive suspension. Attached to the letter was his Affidavit which reads:

“That I was made
aware of the affidavit executed by Alex Racimo of Binalonan, Pangasinan before
the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, which
contained among others, Alex Racimo’s statement.

(a) that Ric Torio asked
Alex Racimo some money in return
to the approval of his loan with BPI Credit Corporation;

(b) that in asking the
money, Ric Torio represented to Alex Racimo that I was the one who instructed
Ric Torio to make the demand;

That I never
instructed Ric Torio to ask for money from Alex Racimo nor I ever connived with
him to ask or demand for money; and in fact and in truth I did not know that
Ric Torio asked for money from Alex Racimo;

That if I had known that Ric Torio used my name, I would not have
consented to it;

That I have not
engaged myself in any irregular or anomalous transaction in relation to my
duties and responsibilities as marketing assistant with BPI Credit
Corporation.”

Likewise attached was the Sworn
Clarificatory Statement of Racimo, viz:

“That I previously executed an affidavit before the Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan;

That in said
affidavit, I stated that Ric Torio upon the instruction of Ben Jovellanos asked
me money in return to the approval of my loan with BPI Credit Corporation;

That in fairness to Ben Jovellanos, I should like to clarify my
statement as follows:

(a) That Ben Jovellanos
never personally approached me or asked me for money;

(b) That I did not
have any basis to tell whether Ben Jovellanos really instructed or convinced
(sic) with Ric Torio in asking money; hence Ben Jovellanos might have just been
used by Ric Torio in asking money.”

Respondent Jovellanos bewailed the
failure of petitioner to give the details of the “reported irregular
transactions to real estate mortgage loans.”^[6]

Respondent’s preventive suspension was not lifted. Instead, it was extended as petitioner
formed a committee^[7]
to investigate the reported irregularities. According to the petition, the result of the investigation is as
follows:^[8]

“x x x

“7. The results
of the investigation, which were affirmed under oath by the head of the audit/investigating
team, revealed the following: On the
solicitation of a percentage of the approved loans, the team visited ten (10)
clients of BPI Credit other than Mr. Alex Racimo to verify whether the
employees were demanding for a percentage of the approved loans. The team was able to talk to seven (7)
clients with the following results:

(a)  Five (5) clients said that the employees did
not ask them for any consideration for the approval of their loans.

(b) Two (2) clients
said that they were approached by the employees for certain
considerations. They were, however,
hesitant to give their written statements, probably afraid that the employees
would avenge them. One of them, Imelda’ Ico, said that Torio and Jovellanos asked her for a “blow out” on two
separate occasions; the first was when she filed her loan application, and
later, when her loan was approved. She,
thus, tendered two “blow outs” which Torio and Jovellanos, together
with ten to thirteen of their friends attended. The client also informed the team that before she applied for a
loan at BPI Credit, she was forewarned by her friends of certain employees who
reportedly demand a percentage of the approved loan. The other, Angelita Reminguer, said that Jovellanos asked for
five percent of the approved loan (P800,000.00) while the second release of her
construction loan was being processed. She complained to SAM PS Coquia of BPI Dagupan Branch who advised her
not to give in to the demand. SAM PS
Coquia relayed the client’s complaint to the Manager of the Dagupan Branch and
the Business Center Head.

8. With respect to the overvaluation of
properties, twelve (12) properties previously appraised by Torio were
re-appraised by the appraiser of BPI Dagupan Business Center. Torio’s appraisal of two of these properties
varied considerably from the figures reached when these were re-appraised. The first property which was owned by
Pedro/Victoria Revote and subject of a real estate mortgage as security for a
P100,000.00 loan, was appraised by Torio on 3 July 1986 as follows:

Land:      287 sq.m. @ 400/sq.m.               P
114,800.00

Bungalow: 130.35 sq.m. @ 2,300/ sq.m.      299,000.00

Total: Appraised Value              P 413,800.00

Torio did not subject the property to
depreciation since the “Estimated Remaining Economic Life based on Present
Physical condition” equaled the “Normal Economic Life for Type of
Building.” The bungalow, moreover, was reported to be well-maintained.

9.  On the other hand, Jorge Monje, Appraiser of
BPI Dagupan Branch submitted a markedly different appraisal of the property on
4 September 1987. He depreciated the
bungalow based on the estimated remaining life of seven years:

Land:   287 sq.m. @ 400/sq.m. P114,800.00

Improvement:

10.35 sq.m. @

2,300/sq.m. 299,806.00

Less: 72% depreciation

(based
on estimated

remaining life of

7 years)    215,859.00                83,946.00

Total Appraised Value             P198,746.00

Monje also found that the improvement, which was built in 1969, was not properly
maintained. Mr. John Cornel, an
appraiser of Dagupan Business Center who accompanied Monje during the
inspection, appraised the property at P222,729.00. The difference of P23,983.00 from the appraisal of Jorge Monje
was due to the lower depreciation rate adopted by Cornel. Compared to the appraisals made by Monje and
Cornel, Torio appraised the property at twice its value. Moreover, the fact that the property was foreclosed by the Rural Bank of
Malsiqui on 17 September 1984 and redeemed by the borrowers on 1 October 1984,
was not reflected on the Loan Offering Memo addressed to the Credit
Committee. This Loan Offering Memo was
signed by Marketing Assistant Benjamin Jovellanos. That he signed the same was never denied by
him. He likewise never bothered to
explain why he, knowing that the collateral had a history of foreclosure and defaults, omitted mentioning this
important fact in the Loan Offering Memo.”

Respondent Jovellanos was then served a Notice of Termination effective
November 25, 1987 on the ground of wilfull breach of trust. Jovellanos countered by filing a complaint
for illegal dismissal with damages. On
September 5, 1990, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent Jovellanos,
thus:

“Wherefore, consistent with the foregoing tenor, judgment is
hereby rendered, to wit:

1. As to complainant
Benjamin Jovellanos, respondent is guilty of illegal dismissal, accordingly,
respondent BPI Credit Corporation is ordered,
as follows:

(a) To reinstate
immediately complainant Benjamin Jovellanos to his former position or
equivalent thereto without loss of seniority rights or at the option of
respondent BPI CREDIT CORPORATION, payroll reinstatement;

(b) To pay
complainant Benjamin Jovellanos two (2) years backwages without qualification
or deduction in the amount of SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS
(P76,800.00); and

(c) To pay attorney’s fees ten percent (10%) of
the judgment award in the amount of P7,680.00.”

Petitioner appealed to the respondent
NLRC. On December 20, 1991, the Third
Division of the respondent NLRC, affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter
except that it deleted the award of attorney’s fees in favor of respondent
Jovellanos.^[9]
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the respondent commission
on April 30, 1992.^[10]

In this petition for certiorari, petitioner urges:

ARGUMENTS

I

THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE DISCRETION IN
FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO JUST CAUSE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

II

THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED A GROSS MISAPPRECIATION OF THE
ATTENDANT FACTS AND OF THE APPLICABLE LAW IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT
OBSERVE DUE PROCESS BEFORE TERMINATING PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S SERVICES.

We find no merit in the petition.

Petitioner’s submissions ignore the protection accorded by our
Constitution to the worker’s precious right to security of tenure. The enthronement of the worker’s right to
security of tenure in our fundamental law was not achieved overnight. For all its liberality towards labor, our
1935 Constitution did not elevate the right as a constitutional right. For a long time, the worker’s security of
tenure had only the protective mantle of statutes and their interpretative
rules and regulations. It was an
uncertain protection that sometimes yielded to the political permutations of
the times. It took labor nearly four
decades of sweat and tears to persuade our people thru their leaders, to exalt
the worker’s right to security of tenure as a sacrosanct constitutional
right. It was Article II, section 2 of
our 1973 Constitution that declared as a policy that the State shall assure
the right of workers to security of
tenure. The 1987 Constitution is even
more solicitous of the welfare of labor. Section 3 of its Article XIII mandates that the State shall afford full
protection to labor and declares that all workers shall be entitled to security
of tenure. Among the enunciated State
policies are the promotion of social justice^[11] and a just and dynamic social order.^[12] In contrast, the prerogative of management
to dismiss a worker, as an aspect of property right, has never been endowed
with a constitutional status.

The unequivocal constitutional declaration that all workers shall
be entitled to security of tenure spurred our lawmakers to strengthen the
protective walls around this hard earned right. The right was protected from undue infringement both by our
substantive and procedural laws. Thus,
the causes for dismissing employees were more defined and restricted;^[13]
on the other hand, the procedure of termination was also more clearly
delineated.^[14]
These substantive and procedural laws must
be strictly complied with before a worker can be dismissed from his employment.

Prescinding from these premises, we affirm the ruling of the NLRC
that private respondent was dismissed in violation of his right to procedural
due process. Article 277(b) of the
Labor Code provides the procedure for terminating a worker, viz:

x x x

“(b)  Subject to the constitutional right of workers
to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except
for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of
notice under Article 283 of this Code the employer shall furnish the worker
whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a
statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and
regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor
and Employment. Any decision taken by
the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest
the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional
branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause shall rest on the employer. The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment may suspend the
effects of the termination pending resolution of the dispute in the event of a
prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the Department of Labor and
Employment before whom such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a
serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a mass lay­-off.”

In the case at bench, petitioner did not
give fair notice to private respondent of the charges against him. According to the petitioner, on August 12,
1987, its Assistant Vice President de los Santos “x x x brought up the
subject as he and Jovellanos were on their way home from a staff
presentation at about 9:45 p.m.” He also “x x x confronted
Jovellanos about the contents of the affidavit without naming Racimo as its
author.” Such casualness and incompleteness of information cannot
satisfy the requirements of due process. Neither could the notice of preventive suspension served on private
respondent on August 17, 1987 have any curative effect. A reading of said notice will show that it
required private respondent to explain his participation in certain “…
reported irregular transactions pertaining to Real Estate Mortgage Loans of
which you are CI-Appraiser…” The lack of specificity or the generality
of the charge speaks for itself. Worse
still, petitioner thereafter conducted its own ex parte investigation
without the participation of the private respondent. It interviewed a certain Imelda Ico who revealed that Jovellanos
and Torio asked her for a “blow out” when she filed her loan
application, and later when her loan was approved. Another woman, Angelita Reminguer, also declared that Jovellanos
asked for five percent (5%) of her approved loan. The two, however, refused to give any sworn statement. Private respondent who was not aware of the
investigation was never given an opportunity to disprove their accusation. Yet, primarily on the basis of the damaging
statements of Ico and Reminguer, petitioner dismissed private respondent
effective November 25, 1987 on the ground of willful breach of trust. The opportunity of private respondent to
defend himself was thus more chimerical than real.

We also affirm the ruling of the NLRC that the evidence on record
does not justify the dismissal of the private respondent. Alex Racimo retracted his affidavit
implicating private respondent. The
charges made by Imelda lco and Angelita Reminguer hardly had any evidentiary
value. As ruled by the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC:

“As gleaned from
the record, other charges made against complainant Jovellanos accusing him of
soliciting percentage fee by a certain Angelita Reminguer and Imelda Ico could
not also be given credit. Firstly,
because it is an unsworn statement; Secondly, being mere allegation
unsupportive (sic) by corroborative evidence; Thirdly, complainant Jovellanos
was not aware of such accusation during his confrontation with the assistant
Vice-President of BPI Credit, Gaspar Centino de los Santos. Neither was it specified in his suspension
order leading to his termination. It is
pertinent further, to note the fact that the foreclosure and redemption of a
real property not having been reflected on the loan offering memo addressed to
the Credit Committee could have been done intentionally by complainant
Jovellanos. For such omission, We believe
that complainant could not be solely responsible, since the memo was also
signed by the Business Center Head Francisco Nery and Assistant Vice-President
Bienvenido Manangun who are higher in rank than complainant Jovellanos being
merely marketing assistant. This
omission therefore, should not be taken against him and charge of cooperating
or lending assistance to the Credit Investigator in the overvaluation of the
appraisal of the property of a client of the Bank.”

All these notwithstanding, petitioner insists that on ground of loss
of trust and confidence it can dismiss private respondent considering the
nature of his position as Marketing
Assistant. It posits the thesis that
the dismissal can be justified as long as it has “some basis” since the position of private
respondent calls for trust. Time does
not stand still and petitioner ought
to know that this thesis has long been entombed by our Constitution which has
elevated the security of tenure of our workers to a constitutional right. We hold that this right cannot be eroded,
let alone be forfeited except upon a clear and convincing showing of a just and lawful cause. In the case at bench, it is not disputed
that private respondent has served the petitioner from April 23, 1976 up to
September 18, 1987 starting as credit investigator until he rose to the
position of Marketing Assistant. His
eleven (11) years of service with the petitioner has not been tainted with any
kind of dishonesty. We cannot allow
petitioner to disregard this long length of faithful service on the basis of
evidence that is hearsay, uncorroborated, and untrustworthy, otherwise, the
tenurial right of our workers would have but a scrap value.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED, there being no
showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the public respondent in its
Decision of December 20, 1991. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., no part.

^[1]
Page 5, Rollo.

^[2]
Id.

^[3]
Id.

^[4]
Id.

^[5]
Id.

^[6]
Decision of public respondent, p. 7; p. 36, Rollo.

^[7]
It was composed of Arthur D. Yosinco, Senior Asst. Manager; Arturo L. Kimseng, Asst. Vice President and
Internal Auditor; and Eliseo O. Adre, Vice President and Internal Auditor.

^[8]
Pages 8-11, Rollo.

^[9]
Annex “A”, Petition.

^[10]
Annex “B”, Petition.

^[11]
Section 10, Article II.

^[12]
Section 9, Article II.

^[13]
Articles 279 and 282 of the Labor Code.

^[14]
Article 277 of the Labor Code.