Fuentes v. NLRC
Fuentes v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-75955, October 28, 1988
- Labor Law
- gross negligence
- teller
- illegal dismissal
- dismissal for cause
- Labor Code Article 282
- teller's manual
- trust and confidence
- bank employment
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioner Maria Linda Fuentes was employed as a teller of Philippine Banking Corporation. While acting as an overnight teller, she received and counted a P200,000.00 cash deposit and later left the cash exposed on her counter on two occasions, resulting in the loss of one bundle worth P50,000.00, after which she was dismissed for gross negligence. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with reinstatement and backwages, but the Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed her complaint and the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal.
Maria Linda Fuentes, a teller of Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbanking), was tasked with receiving, counting, and safeguarding deposits in her teller cage at the bank’s Ayala Avenue, Makati branch.
May 28, 1982
At about 10:30 a.m., Fuentes received a P200,000.00 cash deposit as an overnight teller, counted it with a co-teller, and finished at about 10:40 a.m. When the Chief Teller later handed her incomplete payroll checks for validation, Fuentes left her teller’s cage to get other checks without placing the P200,000.00 cash inside her drawer. After three to five minutes, she returned but found the checks still incomplete, so she went out again to get the remaining checks.
May 28, 1982
While on her way to a co-teller’s cubicle, Fuentes noticed that the pile of P200,000.00 had been rearranged. When she returned and counted the money, she discovered that P50,000.00 was missing, reported the matter to the Chief Teller after her co-teller denied knowledge, and a search for the missing amount proved unavailing.
Fuentes was asked to explain why she should not be held liable for the loss; she submitted her explanation on June 24, 1982.
June 3, 1983
Fuentes was dismissed from employment for gross negligence.
June 21, 1983
Fuentes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with reinstatement and backwages.
The bank filed a seasonable answer with counterclaim seeking that Fuentes be ordered to restitute the amount of P50,000.00.
January 31, 1984
Labor Arbiter Bienvenido Hermogenes rendered a decision dismissing Fuentes’ complaint for illegal dismissal and also dismissing the counterclaim but without prejudice as to the latter; the dismissal was based on the finding that Fuentes was grossly negligent in the performance of her duties as a teller.
Fuentes appealed to the NLRC, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and denied her motion for reconsideration.
November 28, 1985
The NLRC issued its resolution affirming the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal.
Fuentes sought review in the Supreme Court to set aside the NLRC resolution, arguing that the dismissal for gross negligence was not justified.
October 28, 1988
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC findings that Fuentes was grossly negligent, resulting in the loss of P50,000.00.
II. Issues
Whether petitioner's dismissal on the ground of gross negligence was justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
III. Ruling
Whether petitioner's dismissal on the ground of gross negligence was justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
The Supreme Court held that petitioner was grossly negligent and that her dismissal was justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code, affirming the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner was grossly negligent in her teller duties and that the negligence resulted in the loss of P50,000.00.
- Applying the test of negligence, the Court asked whether petitioner used reasonable care and caution as an ordinarily prudent person would use in the same situation.
- The Court held that petitioner failed to exercise due care because she left the pile of money within the easy reach of the crowd instead of placing the money in her drawer as required by the bank’s teller operations rules.
- The Court emphasized that petitioner left the P200,000.00 exposed on two occasions, showing irresponsibility in the safeguarding of entrusted funds.
- The Court rejected arguments attempting to shift blame, including claims that there was a failure to investigate or that other persons (e.g., the Chief Teller) were involved, because the money was lost in the first place due to petitioner’s gross negligence.
- The Court sustained the employer’s right not to continue employing a teller who had demonstrated conduct inconsistent with the required trust and confidence.
“Upon a thorough consideration of the facts of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason for reversing the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner was grossly negligent in the performance of her duties as a teller, which negligence resulted in the loss of P50,000.00.”
Rule applied
Article 282 of the Labor Code
Doctrines
In evaluating negligence for purposes of dismissal, the controlling question is whether the employee used reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation; if not, the employee is guilty of negligence that may justify termination depending on its gravity.
A bank teller’s failure to safeguard entrusted money in violation of operational rules demonstrates conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence required in that position and may warrant dismissal for gross negligence.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Notes
The counterclaim for restitution of P50,000.00 was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter without prejudice, and the Supreme Court’s review focused on whether dismissal for gross negligence was justified.