SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-57093 May 27, 1983

MONTE DE PIEDAD AND SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, vs. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and JOSEFINA MENDIOLA, Respondents.

Teodoro Padilla for petitioner.chanrobles virtual law library

The Solicitor General for respondent Minister.chanrobles virtual law library

Ceferino M. Carpio, Jr., for private respondent.

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the dismissal of a bank cashier. Josefina A. Mendiola started working for the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank as a teller on April 1, 1962 and steadily rose from the ranks. She was the branch cashier and concurrently a jewelry appraiser at the bank's Fugoso branch, Sta. Cruz, Manila when the bank's board of directors for lack of confidence dismissed her on June 15,1979.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The bank found her guilty of violating section 83 of the General Banking Act as implemented by Central Bank Circular No. 357, governing loans to bank officers and directors:

SEC. 83. - No director or officer of any banking institution shalt either directly or indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of others, borrow any of the deposits or funds of such bank, ... except with the written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank, excluding the director concerned. ... The office of any or officer of a bank who violates the provisions of this section shall immediately become vacant and the director or officer 60 be punished by imprisonment of not less than one year nor more them ton years and by a fine of not leas than one thousand nor more than ten pesos.

It appears that Mendiola was maintaining a personal savings account of P4,000 with the bank's Fugoso Branch. On May 30, 1978 she deposited to her account a check payable to herself amounting to P4,000 thereby increasing her outstanding balance to P8,000. On June 1, 1978 she withdrew from her account the amount of P5,000 even before her check for P4,000 could be cleared. On June 5, 1978 her check for P4,000 was dishonored, which resulted in an overdrawing of P1,000. However, instead of immediately debiting her savings account she looked for the drawer who replaced the dishonored check on June 8, 1978.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As regards Gerardo Ocampo, a fellow officer in the Fugoso branch, on six different occasions he deposited to his savings account six checks, the encashment of which on the same dates said checked were deposited (that was before clearing) was authorized by the branch manager and Mendiola or by Ocampo alone.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

One check for P1,200 was deposited to the account of Ocampo on November 13, 1978. A withdrawal was made by Ocampo on the same day with the authority of the branch manager and Mendiola. The depository bank (Bank of the Philippine Islands, Tayuman) returned the check with the notation "try next clearing." The check was redeposited on November 16 but once again it was returned on November 17 for the reason that payment has been stopped. Ocampo's savings account was not debited despite the advice. On November 22 Ocampo redeemed the bad check with cash.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank in its letter of June 15, 1979 informed the Central Bank of the dismissal of Mendiola and of the restoration in full of the amount involved in the irregularities committed at the Fugoso branch.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On July 5, 1979, Mendiola filed with the National Capital Region (Manila) of the Ministry of Labor a complaint for illegal dismissal against the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank. She did not ask for reinstatement. Instead, in her position paper dated August 29, 1979, she prayed that she be given separation pay of one month for every year of service as well as other benefits.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We find that there is just cause for dismissing Mendiola. She committed willful breach of trust. Being a managerial employee, her dismissal did not require prior clearance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As already stated, Mendiola in her complaint did not seek reinstatement but separation pay and other benefits. She cannot be reinstated because her former position has been filled up. The petitioner is willing to consider Mendiola as resigned and to award her separation pay equivalent to one-half month basic pay for every year of service.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Considering the equities of the case, particularly the fact that Mendiola's offense was not grave, we affirm the dismissal but petitioner bank is ordered to pay her termination pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service or her salary for seventeen (17) months.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Guerrero and Abad Santos, JJ., concurs in the result.