METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, LABOR ARBITER ANTONIO VILLANUEVA, AND GERTRUDES YARRA-REYES, RESPON…

The instant petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the
resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirming the
decision of the Labor Arbiter, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Davao Branch,
to return the P1,000.00 deducted from
complainant’s bi­monthly salary starting from December 31, 1989 and is further
ordered to stop from further deducting said amount to offset the illegal
withdrawal of P96,370.00 from the account of Mrs. Corazon Ramirez Uy effective
upon receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

The facts of the case, as
disclosed by the records, are as follows:

Private respondent, Gertrudes Yarra-Reyes, is a teller of
petitioner bank at its Anda Street Branch, Davao City. On January 30, 1989, an unidentified person
whom she presumed to be a bank employee left a passbook of Corazon Ramirez Uy
and withdrawal slip for the amount of P96,370.00 behind her teller’s cage. Inasmuch as she was busy attending to other
transactions in front of her, she did not bother to turn her back to find out
who it was. She confidently assumed it
was a bank employee as only authorized persons were allowed in the said office
area. It was a practice bank personnel
were wont to do for special clients and tolerated by bank officers. She also presumed that the identity of the
depositor’s representative had been checked by the same bank employee. Later on, she placed the withdrawal slip and
passbook in a box for the approval and verification of a bank officer. They were returned to her with the signature
verification of Mr. Alfred Gee. She
called out to the representative of the withdrawing depositor twice but he made
no appearance. At about 2:30 p.m., a
man approached her for the withdrawal while simultaneously a voice from behind
her whispered, “Dear, nandiyan na ang tao.” Again, she did not bother
to look behind her as she was in the middle of counting the P96,370.00
withdrawal. Believing that the
withdrawal was approved by Alfred Gee, the
accountant cashier, and being of the impression that he had already checked
with the client who had authorized the withdrawal, private respondent called
the man and paid him the P96,370.00. At
day’s end she submitted all necessary documents including the withdrawal slip
to bank Bookkeeper Esperidion Linaza for clearance, for which she was
cleared. The following day, January 31,
1989, the bank manager informed her that the P96,370.00 withdrawal was not
valid since there was no withdrawal slip for the said transaction. Subsequently, a check was conducted and it
was discovered that in another computer located outside the private respondent’s
teller’s cage, an entry of P96,310.00 against the account of another depositor,
Mr. de Leon, was made. This was
followed by a “DEBIT MEMO” entry of P0.60, then an “ERROR
CORRECT” entry of P96,370.00 and a final entry of P60. These computer entries were evidently made
to cover up the unauthorized withdrawal from Mrs. Uy’s account. Furthermore, the withdrawal slip in the
custody of Mr. Linaza was still nowhere to be found. It turned out that the passbook presented to private respondent
was fictitious. At that time, the
genuine passbook of Mrs. Uy was in the custody of the Saving Account
bookkeeper.^[1]

An investigation was conducted by the bank branch officials and
their lawyers assisted by the NBI who subjected private respondent and other
employees to polygraph tests. Only the
result of the private respondent’s test was declared positive. After that initial interrogation without
counsel, private respondent was re-investigated, this time with counsel. Despite a letter by San Pedro bank manager
Francisco Noble, Jr. to Mr. Ricardo Gella, Executive Vice President, admitting
that suspects were narrowed down to two (2) of the accounting staff and were
being monitored,^[2]
the bank, nonetheless, made respondent accountable for the P96,370.00. The ground relied on was her negligence for
failing to ask the alleged representative of the depositor to present
identification papers and failing to verify the withdrawal with the
client-depositor in view of the large amount involved as required by the bank
Manual of Procedures. Though allowed to
continue working, the bank started to deduct P1,000.00 bimonthly from
complainant’s salary to answer for the P96,370.00 loss.

Private respondent protested this deduction which both Labor
Arbiter and NLRC agree were illegal. Hence, this petition.

The petitioner alleges that grave abuse of discretion was
committed by the NLRC in its resolution,^[3] which
reads in part:

A judicious review and evaluation of the records of the case
indubitably disclose that respondent-appellant failed to establish that the
Labor Arbiter below acted with grave abuse of discretion or that he committed
serious errors in rendering the challenged decision. Records show that the appealed decision is amply supported by
relevant and material evidence. The
matter of evaluating the merits or demerits of an issue or issues in a case is
addressed to the sound judgment of the labor Arbiter. Absence of sufficient proof that the Labor Arbiter gravely abused
his discretion, his findings and conclusions should not be disturbed (Egyptair
v. NLRC, 148 SCRA 125). Factual
findings of quasi-judicial agencies are accorded not only respect but even
finality if supported by substantial evidence (Packaging Products Corp. vs.
NLRC, 152 SCRA 210).

Moreover, records clearly show that complainant followed bank
procedures when she effected payment of the withdrawal transaction in the
amount of P96,370.00 relating to the savings account of depositor Corazon
Ramirez Uy. The withdrawal slip
appeared perfectly all right, complainant claims, because it bears the
signature/initial of the bank’s Asst. Cashier, who is the bank branch’s
verifying and approving officer. Respondent’s contention that since the subject withdrawal slip is
missing from its files, the transaction is not valid, should be given scant
consideration.

As correctly pointed out by the complainant, the existence of the
withdrawal slip is corroborated by the “P96,370.00 computer entry
input” in complainant’s batch sheet print out (i.e. “Teller’s Journal
Computer Print-Out”) of her banking transactions on 30 January 1989. In fact, complainant adds, the said sheet
print out and the corresponding withdrawal slip were submitted to the Branch
Bookkeeper at the close of that day, which were used in balancing that day’s
accounts of complainant herein, and in the issuance of a clearance by the
Bank’s Branch Bookkeeper. The loss of
said withdrawal slip and the computer entries relating to the subject
transaction should have been looked into more carefully by the respondent to
find out who are the real perpetrators of the crime.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby Affirmed and both
appeals Dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

This Court agrees with the resolution of the NLRC. There is no showing of abuse of
discretion. The matter of evaluating
the merits and demerits of the case, as long as the decision is supported by
the facts and the evidence is left to the sound discretion of the Labor
Arbiter. Time and again this Court has
made pronouncements that findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter are to be
accorded great respect.^[4]

The court is disturbed by the unconscionable insistence of
petitioner bank that private respondent who is more a victim than a culprit
absorb the risks and loss of the bank. It is common knowledge as private respondent asserts that bank procedures
have more often than not been relaxed to accommodate special clients. They have often gone direct to bank
officials and insiders to facilitate their withdrawals. The bank cannot now throw the book on
private respondent after having tolerated such a practice and let her suffer
full liability. After the bank found
itself helpless in catching the real
culprits despite its resources, it cannot now shift the blame to private
respondent and sanctimoniously pronounce in its Position Paper, that “the
deduction (from private respondent’s salary of the amount lost) is reasonable
for the reimbursement would take more than four (4) years and would still be
gainfully employed.”^[5] This
Court will not countenance this feigned magnanimity.

WHEREFORE, no
grave abuse of discretion having been committed by the NLRC in its resolution,
the petition is DISMISSED. With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on leave.

Quiason, J., no part being
former counsel of petitioner.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 82.

^[2]
Id., at p. 83.

^[3]
Id., at pp. 207-208.

^[4]
Egyptair v. NLRC, 148 SCRA 125; Packaging Products Corp. vs.
NLRC, 152 SCRA; San Miguel Corp. vs. Javate, Jr., 205 SCRA 469; Talaga
Barangay Water Service Cooperative vs. NLRC, 207 SCRA 263; Family
Planning Organization vs. NLRC, et al., 207 SCRA 415; and more recently
Union of Filipino Workers vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 98111, April 7,
1993.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 64.