Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 194374 (Jose Alejandro C. Crisologo v. Union Bank of the Philippines, Justo R. Ortiz and Edwin R. Bautista)

RESOLUTION 

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the March 10, 2010 Decision^[1] and October 29, 2010 Resolution^[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107150, which set aside the April 30, 2008 Decision^[3] and October 30, 2008 Resolution^[4]  of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and effectively reinstated the Labor Arbiter's Decision dismissing petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Factual Antecedents

On October 3, 2005, petitioner Jose Alejandro C. Crisologo was employed by respondent Union Bank of the Philippines ("respondent bank") as Associate Relationship Manager with a monthly salary of P52,500.00. In the course of his probationary employment, petitioner was required to attend a series of programs conducted by respondent from January 10 to 31, 2006. However, Human Resources Officer Patricia Ingco allowed him to just sign in and out of the program during important client calls.

On January 18, 2006, Ingco caught Dondee Ramos, one of the trainees, with a filled-up questionnaire for the Bills Purchase Module part of the program. Upon investigation, Maria Angela G. Zafra, another trainee, admitted that it was she who took the questionnaire from Ingco's bag, photocopied it and gave copies to her co-trainees.

All program participants, including petitioner, were issued a memorandum requiring them to explain their involvement in the incident. Petitioner denied participation, claiming he refused to accept the copy given to him and that he intended to report the matter through a text message but decided against it in order to avert suspicion from his co-participants.

After due hearings, respondent bank found that all the trainees, including petitioner, participated in the unauthorized taking of the questionnaire and used it in order to pass the examinations. Petitioner was thus dismissed on the grounds of dishonesty, concealment of the fact that copies of the questionnaire were in his possession, and deliberate failure to report the incident, prompting him to file an illegal dismissal case with prayer for reinstatement, full backwages and other benefits, unpaid salaries, damages and attorney's fees against respondent bank and its officers, respondents Justo R. Ortiz and Edwin R. Bautista.

The Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter dismissed^[5] the complaint and found respondents justified in terminating petitioner's employment on the ground of loss of confidence. Petitioner held a position of trust and confidence, which required the absolute trust of respondents to effectively discharge his functions. Moreover, petitioner, at the time, was still a probationary employee. Since he failed to prove his fitness to become a regular employee, then respondents cannot be faulted for dismissing him.

The NLRC's Ruling

The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It held that petitioner was not dismissed for cause, as there was dearth of evidence showing his participation in the incident. The NLRC ordered respondents to reinstate petitioner to his former or equivalent position, to pay his backwages computed from the time of dismissal up to reinstatement, and to pay his unpaid salaries, proportionate 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated October 30, 2008.

The CA's Ruling

Finding substantial evidence to warrant petitioner's dismissal from employment, the CA reversed the NLRC. The CA noted the undisputed fact that petitioner was in actual possession of the questionnaire, and even justified such possession. Furthermore, petitioner was still a probationary employee at the time, and may be terminated either for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the standards set by respondents. Finally, petitioner was holding a managerial position, one which requires utmost trustworthiness and responsibility. Having failed to demonstrate that he had either, respondents, therefore, cannot be compelled to continue his employment.

Issue Before The Court

In the present petition for review, petitioner contends that the CA erred in finding that he was not illegally dismissed, and consequently, in failing to order his reinstatement and the payment of his backwages and other monetary benefits.

The Court's Ruling

After a punctilious examination of the records, the Court sustains the conclusions reached by the CA that petitioner was not illegally dismissed.

Article 281 of the Labor Code provides: 

"ART. 281. Probationary employment. - Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee."

In this case, petitioner's probationary status at the time of the questionnaire pilferage incident has been indubitably established, and his indirect involvement, consisting in his failure to disclose that he had a copy in his actual possession, has also been substantiated. While it may be true that petitioner did not himself take the questionnaire from Ingco's bag, as it was a co-trainee who succinctly admitted having done so, petitioner's actuations still left much to be desired in terms of responsibility and trustworthiness, attributes that must be exhibited by one holding a managerial position like him. Having thus lost the trust and confidence of respondents as a result of the incident, petitioner's dismissal was clearly, justified.

Consequently, the order to reinstate petitioner and to pay him backwages as well as other monetary benefits as directed by the NLRC have no leg to stand on and must necessarily be dismissed.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the assailed March 10, 2010 Decision and October 29, 2010 Resolution of the CA are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

(Peralta, J., no part, as his spouse, CA Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurred in the assailed CA resolution; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated Member per Raffle dated 25 July 2011.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 51-59.

^[2] Id. at pp. 46-49. 

^[3] Id. at pp. 197-205.

^[4] Id. at pp. 206-207. 

^[5] Id. at 142-160.