Calata, Jasmin Joy G.

LLB4103

Prudential Bank vs. Mauricio

Facts:
Mauricio, an employee of the petitioner, is the manager of the said bank in Magallanes,
Makati Branch. Spouses Marcelo and Corazon Cruz opened their dollar savings account with an
initial cash deposit of 500 USD. In effect, the spouses secured for a Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage over their San Juan property in accord of Prudential Bank. Later on, an audit
investigation was done in Magallanes Branch due to loss of monetary fund. The said loss was
due to the cash withdrawals and debits of Cruz, whose account is being handled by Mauricio,
even with insufficient funds and collections. In addition, Mauricio performed bank transactions
or cash withdrawals in the absence of actual cash receipt, yet, validations were still prompted.
The Prudential Bank President Jose L. Santos, on his Memorandum effective November
9, 1992, ordered Mauricio to provide him a copy of the teams audit report in writing within 72
hours upon receipt thereof citing reasons why the company or the said bank should not file an
action against him. Report showed a loss of $774, 561.58. Mauricio responded he puts all his
effort to convince the Spouses Cruz to settle their obligations, also, that he is willing for an
investigation to clear his name and reputation on the issue. Granting the request of Mauricio,
hearings were made and as a result, it stipulated charges against the respondent. Arising from the
bank investigation done by the Hearing Committee, Mauricio was found to be guilty of
violations of specific orders and memorandum and commission of imprudent acts prejudicial to
the interests of the bank that served as their basis for loss of trust and confidence on him. In
effect, this resulted to termination of his employment depriving him of the incentives, benefits,
and wages he has to receive upon service. With this, the respondent filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from illegal dismissal with prayer for back
wages; retirement and provident benefits; vacation and sick leave credits; and actual, moral and
exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees.
Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of Mauricio is valid.
Ruling:
Mauricio cannot be held to have abused the discretion he was clothed with absent some
semblance of parameters. In the absence of such guidelines, the validity of Mauricios acts can
be tested by determining whether they were justified under the circumstances. However, no
malice can be deduced from Mauricios acts who tried to collect from the Spouse Cruz and
reported all the transactions to the head office; in fact, the Bank never called his attention to any
irregularity in the transactions but even continued to credit the account of the spouses for the

value of the returned checks. Under the circumstances, Mauricio indeed fully considered the
interest of his employer before approving the questioned transactions.
A dismissal is valid if loss of trust and confidence serve as a ground if the breach of trust is done
in a willful manner implicating it with intent, knowledge and purpose and has no justifiable
excuse.
As Office Order No. 1596 allegedly violated by the respondent states:
Approving officers shall exercise extreme caution in allowing deposit of, encashment or
withdrawals against foreign and out-of-town checks. Refund to the bank of the amount involved
shall be the personal responsibility and accountability of the officer who authorized the
deposit or encashment over the counter when the check should be returned by the drawee
bank for any reason whatsoever.
The Court of Appeals interpreted personal responsibility and accountability as the
reimbursement of the value of any dishonored check but does not mean termination of the
approving officers employment for breaching the banks trust and confidence. It was found that
there is no valid or just cause for the bank to terminate Mauricio on his employment.