Scribd
Upload
278 views4 pages

Alcantara vs. Pcib

The petitioner was dismissed from his job as a branch manager at the Philippine Commercial and International Bank (PCIB) due to allegations that he falsified bank records to facilitate suspicious transactions totaling over 500 million pesos. He claimed illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed his complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals also dismissed due to failure to submit documents. The Supreme Court ruled that while failure to submit documents is not automatic grounds for dismissal, the petitioner was given due process and ample opportunity to defend himself, but failed to prove his dismissal was illegal. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

Jesi Carlos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
278 views4 pages

Alcantara vs. Pcib

The petitioner was dismissed from his job as a branch manager at the Philippine Commercial and International Bank (PCIB) due to allegations that he falsified bank records to facilitate suspicious transactions totaling over 500 million pesos. He claimed illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed his complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals also dismissed due to failure to submit documents. The Supreme Court ruled that while failure to submit documents is not automatic grounds for dismissal, the petitioner was given due process and ample opportunity to defend himself, but failed to prove his dismissal was illegal. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

Jesi Carlos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

LEANDRO M.

ALCANTARA, Petitioner, versus THE PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL


AND INTERNATIONAL BANK, Respondent

G.R. 151349, October 20, 2010

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

TOPIC: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

FACTS:

The petitioner had been an employee of PCIB. He rose from the ranks
until he became a branch manager of the PCIB’s branch in Rizal Avenue,
Manila.

Respondents alleged that a certain Romy Espiritu called the office of Ms.
Ana Lim of its Customer Care reporting the alleged involvement of the
petitioner with a big syndicate. Two Certificates of Time Deposit (CTD) issued
by PCIB were allegedly being used by the syndicate in their illegal activities.
Petitioner] was the one who prepared and processed the CTDs.

The petitioner was dismissed from employment because it was allegedly


determined that he took advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in his
position as branch manager and falsified Bank records in order to facilitate a
transaction amounting to P538,360,000.00 that was prejudicial to the welfare
and interest of the Bank.

Petitioner filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a


complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal


for lack of merit and it was held that there was substantial evidence that
petitioner manipulated the records of respondent to facilitate the anomalous
transactions of the members of the alleged criminal syndicate.

Petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. However, the NLRC


affirmed the same and dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by
the NLRC. Thus, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals which was dismissed on account of
petitioner’s failure to attach the material portions of the records of the NLRC
case, and various relevant or pertinent documents, in accordance with
paragraph 3, Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was
denied by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed.

HELD:

Failure to attach all pleadings and documents, by itself, is not a


sufficient ground to dismiss a petition. In appropriate cases, the courts may
liberally construe procedural rules in order to meet and advance the cause of
substantial justice. Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will
be overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an
honest mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not prejudiced the
adverse party or deprived the court of its authority. The aforementioned
conditions are present in the case at bar.

Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is


premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust
and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with
confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and
protection of the employer’s property. But, in order to constitute a just cause
for dismissal, the act complained of must be “work-related” such as would
show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.

It is settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of


due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must furnish the
employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be
legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee
of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a
hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard,
and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.

In the case at bar, the records would bear out that respondent gave
petitioner a Memorandum informing him of the specific acts or omissions
constituting the alleged violation at issue and requiring him to explain within
72 hours from receipt thereof. Instead of submitting a written explanation,
petitioner’s then counsel, Atty. Epifanio C. Buen, wrote to respondent
requesting that his client be afforded a face-to-face hearing. Respondent replied
with a Memorandum insisting that as per its internal administrative rules and
established jurisprudence on the matter, due process is satisfied, not by a full-
blown hearing, but by the mere opportunity to be heard. In addition,
respondent gave petitioner 48 more hours from receipt thereof within which to
tender his written explanation coupled with the caveat that non-compliance
therewith would be deemed by respondent as a waiver of said right. In
response, Atty. Buen again wrote a letter to respondent reiterating petitioner’s
previous request for a hearing and, furthermore, requiring that all the papers
used by respondent in its investigation be notarized. Respondent answered
wherein it expressed its agreement to furnishing petitioner with the
aforementioned documents albeit not notarized while again reminding him of
the submission of his written explanation and its consequence if not complied
with. However, petitioner remained adamant and, instead of giving his written
explanation, sent a letter wherein he acknowledged Atty. Buen as his counsel
and insisted on his demand for notarized documents. Thus, respondent’s
Bankwide Evaluation Committee issued its decision without petitioner’s written
explanation.

Judging from the aforementioned undisputed sequence of events, it is


apt to conclude that respondent more than acted in accordance with the due
process required in the termination of an employee. It gave petitioner
considerable leeway with regard to the submission of his written explanation by
allowing multiple extensions of time to submit the same and by furnishing him
the documents used in respondent’s investigation. Ultimately, even assuming
that he was not fully heard during the employer’s investigation, it was
petitioner’s fault because of his misguided insistence on having a trial-type
hearing despite established jurisprudence stating that the mere opportunity to
be heard would suffice as due process in administrative proceedings. In any
event, petitioner was given full opportunity to prove his claim of illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC but he still failed to discharge
his burden of proof.

ADJUDICATION:

Petition is denied.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy