MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BOSTON BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for review seeks the nullification of the
resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversing and
setting aside the decision of the labor arbiter which declared the dismissal of Manuel Melgar Dela Cruz illegal and awarded
him backwages and other monetary benefits.

Dela Cruz was, since 1984, the branch manager of the Boston Bank
of the Philippines (BBOP for brevity), formerly known as the Commercial Bank of
Manila. He was assigned to the
Arroceros Branch and was earning a basic salary of P13,000 a month.

On October 14, 1985, Dela Cruz, accompanied by a member of his
staff, picked up a cash deposit of P200,000 from Attorney Bernardita Santos at
the Manila City Hall. Contrary to bank
policy, he did not make physical count of the money, alleging that, for
security reasons, it was not practicable. The teller to whom the deposit was turned over, without actual count and
relying on the figure appearing on the deposit slip, validated the deposit slip
for P200,000. However, later in the
day, the teller discovered that the picked-up deposit of Attorney Santos
amounted to only P195,000. The teller
informed the cashier about the shortage. She was told by the latter to validate the deposit slip for the amount
actually received, i.e., P195,000 only. The deposit slip was thus re-validated by the teller for P195,000 and
the bookkeeper accordingly adjusted her posting from P200,000 to P195,000 in
the savings account ledger of Attorney Santos. No shortage was thus booked or recognized by the branch.

Attorney Santos became aware of the adjustments in her savings
account ledger when she was informed by a messenger of the branch that her
savings account was not sufficient to cover a check which she issued on October
18, 1985. Three (3) days later, she wrote a letter?complaint to the
branch, demanding that it correct the entries posted on her savings account, as
she was absolutely sure that she gave Dela Cruz P200,000. She stressed in her letter that, despite her
request for him on October 14, 1985, to count her cash deposit, he, for no
apparent reason, refused to do so.

Under the respondent bank’s Operation Circular No. 002-85,
shortages are shouldered by the person found to be responsible for the same, it
there is no fraud involved in incurring them. In addition, shortages shall be initially investigated by the branch
committee to determine (1) whether or not there is evidentiary or moral basis
to believe that fraud may be involved, or (2) whether there is justification to
allow the person responsible to pay the shortage. The decision is to be rendered by the Division Head if the amount
of shortage is less than P5,000, and by the Committee on Fraud and Shortages if
the shortage is more than P5,000. In
any event, the shortage shall be referred to the Committee on Fraud and
Shortages if fraud is involved.

Without reporting the P5,000 cash shortage to the Head Office and
without prior authorization or clearance from his Division Head, Dela Cruz directed his staff to credit the
savings account of Attorney Santos with the sum of P5,000, representing the
shortage in her picked-up deposit. He
advised his staff that he would duly inform his Division Head, Oscar Cajipe,
about the treatment of the shortage. He
validated their action by personally signing the credit ticket authorizing the
transfer of said amount to Santos’ savings account. He also instructed his staff to offset that amount (P5,000)
against a long-outstanding accounts payable of P9,697.17 belonging to a Mr.
Aranza (a treasury bills depositor), and to consequently overstate the Branch
Income Trading Gain, to balance the accounting entries, thus violating Combank
Operation Circular No. 002-85.

In January, 1986, there was a P10,000 item dated January 14,
1985, in the Arroceros Branch’s “Due From Head Office” account
representing the maturity value of Mr. Aranza’s treasury bills placement which
was not responded to by the head office. Allowing the debit float to remain would cause a discrepancy in the
books of the branch, since it would expose the fraudulent act of covering up
the P5,000 shortage in the picked-up deposit or Attorney Santos. To eliminate the P10,000 debit float item,
the bank credited its “Due From Head Office” account with P10,000 and
to balance its entries, the branch overstated its Branch Income Trading Gain by
P10,000. Dela Cruz authorized the
elimination of the P10,000 debit float by affixing his signatures to the credit
ticket. Therefore, although the branch
actually earned a Trading Gain of P11,507.35 on January 15, 1986, the branch
only recorded a Trading Gain of P1,507.35.

The bank’s Internal Audit Division was tipped of the shortage and
attempted cover-up through an anonymous letter, pursuant to which, Rodolfo
Valencia, Head of the Internal Audit Division, formed a Special Audit Team to
investigate the same.

On October 22, 1986, Valencia issued a Memorandum to Dela Cruz,
requiring him to explain the questionable accounting entries posted by the
branch, which resulted in an inaccurate statement of the Branch Income Trading
Gain.

On October 24, 1986, Dela Cruz answered the Memorandum admitting,
among others, that there was indeed a shortage of P5,000 from the picked-up
deposit of Attorney Santos, adding that he authorized personally the credit of
the same amount to her savings account through the reversal of a
long-outstanding Accounts Payable belonging to another client and the
subsequent overstatement of the Branch Income Trading Gain.

The Committee on Fraud and Shortages, composed or Messrs. Rolando Valencia, Alfonso
Cruz, Ernesto Pinpin and Attorney Gregorio Batiller, was convened by
the Head Office to investigate the P5,000-cash shortage and the attempted cover-up by the Arroceros Branch. On November 11, 1986, the committee resolved
to initially relieve Dela Cruz as branch Manager and to transfer him to the
Head Office, as a precautionary
measure against records-tampering and/or harassment or the branch staff, pending a more in-depth investigation of
the case after finding that there was clear malicious intent on the part of
Dela Cruz to conceal the shortage, particularly as it took him almost one (1)
year to report the same.

On November 27, 1986, Dela Cruz submitted his Reply to the
Committee’s findings.

The Audit Report of the Special Audit Team confirmed the allegations
in the anonymous letter and further discovered that Dela Cruz had altered the
maturity dates of several Time Deposit Certificates or clients who were either
his relatives or friends, in order for them to take advantage of higher
interest rates.

On March 18, 1987, the Committee on Fraud and Shortages
recommended to management that petitioner:

“be asked to resign or be terminated from the Bank for having
suggested/instructed the savings account of Atty. Santos be credited for P5,000
chargeable to Trading Gain without prior clearance with his Division Head. Also
considered by the Committee were the alteration on due dates or same time
deposits he authorized/knew, including those of his relatives.” (p. 72,
Rollo.)

Other personnel who participated in the
cover-up were either reprimanded or meted lighter sanctions.

On May 26, 1987, after delays caused by repeated requests for
review, the bank finally sent Dela Cruz a letter informing him of the company’s
decision to terminate his services for loss of trust and confidence.

On May 28, 1987, Dela Cruz filed NLRC-NCR Case No. 05-10897-87
for illegal dismissal.

On March 30, 1990, a decision was rendered by the labor arbiter
(Eduardo G. Magno), the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
dismissal of the complainant as illegal. Respondent Boston Bank (formerly Combank) is hereby ordered to pay
complainant his backwages including all the benefits he should have received
from June 1, 1987 up to finality of decision but not to exceed three
years. In lieu of reinstatement,
respondent Boston Bank (formerly Combank) is ordered to pay his separation pay
equivalent to one?month pay for every year of service computed from his
date of employment up to finality of decision and his other monetary benefits
totaling P50,000 plus attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount
awarded to complainant.

“The computation of his award is as follows:

(1) Backwages

6-1-87 – 3-30-90                                     = 34 mos.

P13,000 x 34 mos.                                 = P442,000

(2) 13th month
pay

P442,000.00                                           =
P36,833.33

12

(3) Service Incentive
Leave Pay

6-1-87 – 3-30-90                                     = 3 years

P13,000 – 26 days                      = P500.00

P500.00 x 15 days                                  = P7,500.00

(4) Monetary benefits
withheld by respondent

= P50,000.00

(5) Separation Pay

2-27-84 – 3-30-90                      = 6 years

P13,000 x 6 yrs.                         = P 78,000.00

P614,333.33

(6) 10% Attorney’s
fees

= P 61,433.33

P675,766.33

=========

(pp. 91-92, Rollo.)

The respondents appealed to the NLRC alleging that the labor arbiter
erred:

“1. in concluding that appellant BBOP failed to sufficiently
prove the loss of its trust and confidence in appellee;

“2. in concluding that appellee was denied of his right to
procedural due process;

“3. in disregarding the probative
value of the evidence presented by appellant BBOP in connection with appellee’s unauthorized
alteration of certificates of time deposit; and

“4. in granting
appellee a monetary award amounting to P675,766.66.”
(pp. 69-70, Rollo.)

On November 29, 1990, the NLRC rendered a Resolution setting
aside the appealed decision and dismissing De la Cruz’s complaint. However, the bank was ordered to pay the
withheld benefits due him in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

Dela Cruz filed this petition
for review alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction:

1. in not sustaining the findings of the labor arbiter that the
petitioner’s termination by the private respondent bank was without valid
ground;

2. in not finding that the bank miserably failed to prove the
legality of the termination for loss of trust and confidence;

3. in not strictly observing the twin requirements of notice and
hearing for dismissal from employment; and

4. in not counting backwages from the date of the effectivity of
the illegal dismissal up to the employee’s actual reinstatement.

The petitioner argues that even if there was misjudgment on his
part in not counting Attorney Santos’ deposit in front of said depositor, and
in subsequently covering up the shortage with income from the Trading Gain, his
dismissal was not only cruel but also too drastic a punishment especially
considering that:

1. it was an isolated act of mismanagement;

2. the success of the Arroceros Branch was due to his efforts,
efficiency and capability;

3. he has no previous derogatory work record as branch manager;
and

4. not only his position but also his means of livelihood are at
stake.

The petition is devoid of merit.

The records disclose that the petitioner was given full and
unhampered opportunity to present his side, submit evidence, and be heard. He not only submitted his written admissions
on October 24 and November 27, 1986, but his subsequent requests for review by
the Committee of the bank and by the labor tribunal were not unheeded. What is repugnant to due process is absolute
lack of opportunity to be heard, or, as applied in administrative proceedings,
an opportunity to explain one’s side (People vs. Aquino, 199 SCRA 610; Brig.
Gen. Commendador vs. Gen. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80; Jaculina vs. NAPOLCOM, 200
SCRA 489, citing Var-Orient Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 732).

The petitioner’s maneuvers to conceal and gloss over the bank’s
shortage and his fraudulent alteration of the due dates of several time deposit
certificates in the branch are serious acts of dishonesty and mismanagement
violative of banking rules and regulations.

There can be no doubt that petitioner’s continuance in the
extremely sensitive fiduciary position of bank branch manager would be patently
inimical to the bank’s interest. It
would be oppressive and unjust to order the bank to take him back for the law,
in protecting the rights of the employee, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction
of the employer (Pacific Mills,
Inc. vs. Alonzo, 199 SCRA 617; San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 115 SCRA 329).

WHEREFORE, the
petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.