ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139259. June 26, 2000]

RCBC vs. MARIA ASUNCION V. JAVELOSA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 26 2000.

G.R. No. 139259 (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Maria Asuncion V. Javelosa assisted by her husband Ramiro Javelosa and Court of Appeals.)

Private respondent Maria Asuncion V. Javelosa was the Branch Cashier at the Roxas City Branch of petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). As the Branch Cashier part of her responsibilities was the opening of the bank vault. Every first working hour o the day private respondent together with the Branch Operations Officer, Mr. Benedicto Hortillano, would open the main vault. After the main vault was opened, the grill door was unlocked by private respondent who had custody of the key thereof although a duplicate was kept in the accounting record vault. After the grill door was opened, private respondent would open the cash vault and remove the money needed for the day. The cash vault and the grill door were then locked. ¹ CA decision; Rollo, p. 54.

On 5 April 1993 private respondent reported for work and opened the main vault in accordance with the standard procedure of RCBC. She took out the cash box for the teller and the petty cash for herself, after which she locked the cash vault and the grill door. She then went home for lunch and returned to the bank in the afternoon. At about 2:30 p.m., she opened the cash vault and took out postdated checks to determine which ones where due for deposit the next day. At closing time, she went to the cash vault to prepare for the cash count. She then noticed that some bundles of money were missing. She reported the incident to Mr. Hortillano. After a cash count they found out that P300,000.00 and $700.00 were missing. Mr. Hortillano then had the office searched but the missing amounts were not found. ² Ibid.

Petitioner's Evaluation and Review Committee investigated the incident and concluded that t was its Branch Manager, Mr. Jaime San Agustin, who took the money since (a) he was the only one who went out of the Bank on 5 April 1993 with a bag that could accommodate thirteen (13) bundles of money; and, (b) he failed in two (2) lie detectors tests. ³ Id., p. 56.

Both San Agustin and private respondent were dismissed for loss of confidence, but petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of the missing money only against private respondent since according to petitioner the proximate cause of the loss was her negligence. As the Branch Cashier, respondent should have locked both the cash vault and the grill door. However, due to her failure to lock the grill door, Branch Manager Jaime San Agustin was able to go to the cash vault to get the money.

Judge Teofilo Guadiz Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 147, Makati City, dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioner to pay private respondent P100,000.00 for attorney's fees. ⁴ Id., p. 92.Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence, the instant petition.

The crux of the controversy is whether private respondent's act of not locking the grill door for a few minutes was the proximate cause of the loss. Such an issue is a question of fact which cannot be disturbed by this Court on appeal. ⁵ Estonia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111547, 27 January 1997, 266 SCRA 627.

In sum, the trial court and the appellate court both ruled that there was insufficient evidence that private respondent's act of not locking the grill door for a few minutes was the proximate cause of the loss. In fact, it was established during the trial that the duplicate key of the grill door was accessible to all bank employees ⁶ See note 1.and that private respondent was not the only one who knew the combination of the cash vault. ⁷ Ibid.These facts show that it was impossible to tell whether private respondent's act was the proximate cause of the loss for it could not be ascertained when the money was actually taken.

We therefore see no reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of the court a quo. We have repeatedly held that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and even carry more weight when they in turn affirm the factual findings of the trial court. ⁸ Fortune Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112191, 7 February 199t, 267 SCRA 653.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 February 1999 affirming the dismissal of the complaint against private respondent Maria Asuncion V. Javelosa by the trial court is AFFIRMED. The Manifestation filed by counsel for petitioner RCBC dated 4 March 2000 is NOTED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE