Celis v. Bank Of Makati
Nancy Claire Pit Celis v. Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 250776, June 15, 2022
- Labor Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- illegal dismissal
- bank employee
- nondisclosure of previous employment
- false or misleading information
- serious misconduct
- fraud
- willful breach of trust
- loss of confidence
- proportionality of penalty
- totality of infractions
- Labor Arbiter
- NLRC
- Court of Appeals
- Rule 45
I. Facts of the Case
Respondent Bank of Makati hired petitioner as an account officer in 2013 and later terminated her after it discovered she had not disclosed her prior employment with another rural bank where there was an embezzlement-related case. The labor tribunals differed on whether petitioner’s omission constituted the bank’s subject infraction justifying dismissal and whether respondent proved just cause.
July 15, 2013
Respondent hired petitioner as an Account Officer for its Pasay City Branch.
May 23, 2016
Respondent reassigned petitioner to the Legal and External Agency Department as an Administrative Officer.
Respondent’s Human Resource Department received a report that petitioner had previously worked at the Rural Bank of Placer (Surigao del Norte) and was involved in a case concerning embezzlement of funds.
Petitioner did not disclose her past employment with the Rural Bank of Placer in her job application with respondent.
December 13, 2017
Respondent issued a Notice of Explanation to petitioner and thereafter placed her under preventive suspension for 30 days starting December 18, 2017.
December 21, 2017
Petitioner submitted a Written Explanation admitting her omission of past employment, attributing it to excitement, and denying involvement in the embezzlement case, characterizing it as hearsay and gossip.
January 8, 2018
Respondent conducted a conference/hearing where petitioner personally explained her side.
January 10, 2018
Respondent issued a Notice of Decision terminating petitioner for (1) violation of the bank’s Code of Conduct for knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured, and (2) serious misconduct, fraud, willful breach of trust, and loss of confidence under Article 297/282 of the Labor Code. Respondent also considered petitioner’s prior 2016 suspensions.
Petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims, and damages, alleging the termination was retaliatory and that respondent failed to prove her involvement in the embezzlement case.
May 23, 2018
The Labor Arbiter ruled for petitioner and held she was illegally dismissed, reasoning that she was never administratively or criminally found guilty of embezzlement, and that her only fault—failing to state past employment—could not justify suspension and termination as a serious offense.
July 13, 2018
The NLRC dismissed respondent’s appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter, holding petitioner could not have committed the offense of knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications because she only withheld information, which was not covered by the subject infraction.
October 26, 2018
The NLRC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
June 7, 2019
The Court of Appeals found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and held respondent validly dismissed petitioner, concluding that petitioner’s nondisclosure violated the bank’s Code of Conduct and that her past transgressions could be considered under the principle of totality of infractions.
December 6, 2019
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
June 15, 2022
The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, finding that petitioner’s nondisclosure did not constitute the bank’s subject infraction because that infraction required an overt/positive act of giving false information. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award with modification on interest (6% per annum from finality until full satisfaction) and remanded the case for proper computation.
II. Issues
Whether respondent validly dismissed petitioner from employment.
Whether or not respondent justifiably dismissed petitioner from employment despite the factual differences in findings among the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals.
III. Ruling
Whether respondent validly dismissed petitioner from employment.
The Court held that petitioner’s nondisclosure did not constitute the bank’s subject infraction and that respondent failed to substantially prove just cause for dismissal.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court treated the case as primarily involving an omission to disclose former employment in a job application, rather than a showing of an overt act of giving false information.
- It explained that the bank’s subject infraction required an overt/positive act of giving false or misleading information, and petitioner’s nondisclosure did not meet that requirement.
- The labor tribunals’ factual finding that petitioner was never administratively found guilty of embezzlement and was never criminally charged/found guilty supported the absence of just cause for dismissal based on alleged embezzlement involvement.
- The Court found respondent’s evidence insufficient to substantially prove the alleged misconduct/fraud and the claimed basis for loss of confidence.
- It emphasized that dismissal is a harsh penalty and must be reasonably proportional to the offense; here, the omission was too minor compared with the penalty imposed.
“To dismiss petitioner on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty.”
Rule applied
Article 294 of the Labor Code (Security of Tenure); Articles 297 and 282 of the Labor Code; established proportionality requirement in administrative/labor discipline; interpretation of the bank’s Code of Conduct and Discipline provision on knowingly giving false or misleading information in employment applications
Whether or not respondent justifiably dismissed petitioner from employment despite the factual differences in findings among the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals.
The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in imputing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC, and that the differences in findings did not justify reversal to uphold dismissal.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s conclusions.
- It found that the labor tribunals’ reasoning was sound: the omission did not fall within the specific bank infraction requiring a positive act of giving false or misleading information.
- The Court rejected the CA’s approach that effectively treated nondisclosure as covered by the subject infraction, and thus treated the CA’s reversal as incorrect.
- It concluded that respondent failed to substantially prove just cause for dismissal, meaning the CA’s rationale could not withstand scrutiny.
“Indubitably, respondent failed to substantially prove that petitioner's dismissal from employment was for a just cause.”
Rule applied
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; standards for grave abuse of discretion in certiorari review; Article 294 of the Labor Code (security of tenure) and just cause requirements
Doctrines
There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty; the penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.
When the bank’s code of conduct requires an overt/positive act of knowingly giving false or misleading information in an employment application, mere nondisclosure or omission—without proof of an affirmative false statement—does not satisfy that specific infraction.
Dismissal as an employment penalty is too harsh when based solely on an omission to disclose prior employment, absent substantial proof that the employee committed the charged misconduct or that the elements of the offense were met.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 7, 2019 and the Resolution dated December 6, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158988 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated May 23, 2018 of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED, subject to MODIFICATION that the total monetary award shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the monetary award in accordance with this Decision.
Notes
The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and modified the interest rate and computation, reflecting that the charged conduct did not fit the bank’s specific infraction and that dismissal lacked substantial evidentiary support.