Scribd
Upload
45 views2 pages

Genuino v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Ken Di
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
45 views2 pages

Genuino v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Ken Di
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/ 2

MARILOU S.

GENUINO,  petitioner, vs. NLRC, CITIBANK, N.A., WILLIAM FERGUSON,


and AZIZ RAJKOTWALA, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 142732-33             December 4, 2007
CITIBANK, N.A., WILLIAM FERGUSON, and AZIZ RAJKOTWALA, petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARILOU GENUINO, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 142753-54
VELASCO, JR., J.:
______________________________________________________________________________

FACTS:

Genuino was employed by Citibank sometime in January 1992 as Treasury Sales Division Head with
the rank of Assistant Vice-President with monthly compensation of PhP 60,487.96, exclusive of
benefits and privileges.

On August 23, 1993, Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging her with "knowledge and/or
involvement" in transactions "which were irregular or even fraudulent." In the same letter, Genuino
was informed she was under preventive suspension.

Genuino wrote Citibank on September 13, 1993 and asked the bank for the factual and legal basis of
the charges, and afford her an opportunity to explain; Substantiate the charge of fraudulent
transactions and correct/repair/compensate the damage caused to her.

On September 13, 1993, Citibank, through Victorino P. Vargas, its Country Senior Human
Resources Officer, sent a letter to Genuino, directing her to explain in writing why her employment
should not be terminated in view of her involvement in these irregular transactions. She was also
directed to appear in an administrative investigation of the matter.

Genuino did not appear in the administrative investigation held on September 21, 1993. Her lawyers
wrote a letter to Citibank's counsel asking "what bank clients' funds were diverted from the bank and
invested in other companies, the specific amounts involved, the manner by which and the date when
such diversions were purportedly affected."

In reply, Citibank's counsel noted Genuino's failure to appear in the investigation and gave Genuino
up to September 23, 1993 to submit her written explanation. Genuino did not submit her written
explanation.11

On September 27, 1993, Citibank informed Genuino of the result of their investigation. It found that
Genuino with Santos used "facilities of Genuino's family corporation, namely, Global Pacific,
personally and actively participated in the diversion of bank clients' funds to products of other
companies that yielded interests higher than what Citibank products offered and that Genuino and
Santos realized substantial financial gains, all in violation of existing company policy and the
Corporation Code, which for your information, carries a penal sanction."

Genuino's employment was terminated by Citibank on grounds of (1) serious misconduct, (2) willful
breach of the trust reposed upon her by the bank, and (3) commission of a crime against the bank.

Labor Arbiter - the dismissal of the complainant Marilou S. Genuino to be without just cause and in
violation of her right to due process,

NLRC- reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.


CA- with just cause but w/o due process.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA promulgated its decision on September 30, 1999, denying due course to and dismissing
both petitions. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration and on March 31, 2000, the appellate
court modified its decision and held:

WHEREFORE, save for the MODIFICATION ordering Citibank, N.A. to pay Ms. Marilou S.


Genuino five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) as indemnity for non-observance of due process
in CA-G.R. SP No. 51532, this Court's 30 September 1999 decision
is REITERATED and AFFIRMED in all other respects.

The Issue

WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF GENUINO IS FOR A JUST CAUSE AND IN


ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS

RULING:

Yes, the dismissal was for just cause but lacked due process.

The law provides that any employer seeking to dismiss a worker shall furnish the latter a written
notice stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal. The purpose of
this notice is to sufficiently apprise the employee of the acts complained of and enable the employee
to prepare his/her defense.

In this present case, the LA found that Citibank failed to adequately notify Genuino of the charges
against her. The fact remains that the charges were too general to enable Genuino to intelligently
and adequately prepare her defense. On the contrary, the NLRC held that “the function of a notice to
explain is only to state the basic facts of the employer’s charges.

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