Solidbank Corporation v. Court Of Appeals

FIRST DIVISION December 7, 2015 G.R. No. 166581 SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND DANILO H. LAZARO , Respondents SERENO,CJ.: We resolve the Petitions for Review filed by Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) in G.R. No. 166581, and Danilo H. Lazaro (Lazaro) in G.R. No. 167187 from the 19 January 2004 Decision,1 01 July 2004 Amended Decision,2 and 14 January 2005 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.SP No. 73629. The Facts As culled from the CA, the antecedent facts are as follows: Petitioner Danilo H. Lazaro (Lazaro) joined respondent Solidbank Corporation on December 21, 1992. He rose from the ranks until he became Vice President, Head of the Branch Banking Group, Region 6 (Southern Luzon branches).

On August 21, 1995, the Imus branch, one of the bank's branches under Lazaro, was audited for the first time by the bank's internal auditors, known as the Audit and Credit Examination Services (ACES). The audit uncovered certain irregularities committed by the branch manager and the accountant involving loan releases without proper documentation and approval of the Region Head and other appropriate approving bodies. Respondent bank was allegedly defrauded in the amount of P43 million through the fraudulent acts and/or activities allegedly committed by some officers of the said branch office, in connivance with some individual borrowers.

Lazaro immediately tendered his resignation effective February 15, 1996, out of delicadeza, when his name was dragged by the ACES Audit Report into the Imus branch loan anomaly with a sweeping allegation "that he has given blanket authority to all the Branch Managers in his region to commit loans up to P1 Million subject to his confirmation." He was not however included among those criminally charged by the bank. Lazaro's resignation was not accepted by respondent bank president Vistan who categorically cleared him of any liability on the Imus case with the assurance that he (Vistan) personally, does not believe that petitioner Lazaro has anything to do with the said irregularity.

Respondent Vistan persuaded Lazaro to stay and help resolve the Imus case. Thus was then assigned in a special project attached to the office of the legal counsel. Pursuant to respondent Vistan's instruction to concentrate on the Imus branch loans, Lazaro worked and coordinated closely with the bank's legal counsel.

The bank filed criminal charges against several persons including the Imus Branch Manager, the accountant and four borrowers. Petitioner's Christmas bonus which was credited to his account on November 13, 1996 was ordered reversed by a debit memo from respondent's bank Human Resource Department (HRD) on November 15, 1996. Aggrieved, Lazaro wrote a letter to respondent Vistan seeking clarification.

There was no response from respondent Vistan. On December 13, 1996, petitioner Lazaro was told by Ed Buenaventura of the Motorpool Section to surrender his service car. Later, Lazaro found out that his payroll for December 1-15, 1996 was not credited to his payroll account.

He thus wrote another letter to respondent Vistan reiterating his earlier request for clarification. Again, there was no answer. Lazaro requested for a meeting with respondent Vistan.

On January 7, 1997, they met together with respondent SVP Jazmines at the latter's office. Ten (10) months and twenty two (22) days after Lazaro was assigned to special projects, respondent bank president Vistan verbally dismissed petitioner Lazaro upon the recommendation of and after consultation with respondent Senior Vice President Jazmines because his (Lazaro's) continued presence "might be used as a basis to accuse the bank of abetting a senior officer who has been implicated by a "customer" in a case of public inquiry."

The dismissal was made retroactive November 30, 1996, more that [sic] a month before he was informed of his dismissal.

On April 24, 1997, petitioner Lazaro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of earned wages and bonus, reinstatement, backwages including moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.4 The Labor Arbiter Ruling On 8 November 2001, Labor Arbiter (LA) Geobel Bartolabac issued a Decision5 dismissing the Complaint filed by Lazaro. The LA pointed out that absent any evidence that Lazaro was still performing the functions of a banker is tantamount to the bank's implied acceptance of his voluntary and irrevocable resignation. However, considering that he was "reasonably made to believe that his job would be given back to him by virtue of his earnest effort to recover whatever losses that respondent bank may have incurred as a result of the alleged scam,"6 and in view of the cessation of the bank's operation, Lazaro was awarded the following amounts:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondent Solid Bank Corporation is, however, ordered to pay complainant Danilo H. Lazaro the following: 1. Separation pay From 12/21/92-6/30/2000 (sic): (including the imputed service) P53,962.64 x 8 years = ₱431,701.12 2. Compensatory benefit: From 11/30/96-6/30/2000 (temporary date) P53,962.64 x 42 months/2 = 1,133,215.40 (But not less than P1 million nor more than P1.5 Million) 3. 1996 Christmas bonus: 53,962.64 4. Moral and exemplary damages for arbitrary reversal of 1996 Christmas bonus. 200,000.00