Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.) Vs. Castor A.

Dompor, G.R. Nos. 163293 & 163297, December 13, 2010.

First Division
Del Castillo

FACTS: On October 1, 1975, respondent Dompor was employed by then PCIB (which
became Equitable PCI Bank, and now BDO). In 1995, he was assigned as branch
manager of PCIB’s Makati Cinema Branch. The area head’s attention was called
regarding a number of PLDT dividend checks being sent for clearing by PCIB Makati
Cinema Branch. It appears that respondent allowed Luz Fuentes, a client-depositor of
PCIB Makati Cinema Branch who opened checking account no. 0672-04408-0 on July
14, 1995, to deposit several second-endorsed PLDT dividend checks beginning the last
quarter of 1995. A special audit was conducted and the report showed that 67,748
PLDT second-endorsed dividend checks, covered by 332 deposit slips, and with a total
amount of ₱6.713 million, were drawn on RCBC-Makati and made payable to different
payee corporations and prominent personalities. Thus, from its findings and evaluation,
the audit committee recommended respondent’s dismissal from employment and
setting up of a contingent liability for the potential loss for violation of bank’s policies
and failure to exercise prudence expected of a branch head. On February 7, 1997,
respondent received a Memo dated January 7, 1997 dismissing him from employment
on the grounds of serious policy violations, willful breach of trust, and loss of
confidence, with further sanction of forfeiture of benefits and contingent restitution of
the total amount of ₱6,712,756.61 including costs.

ISSUE: Was respondent Dompor illegally dismissed?

RULING: No. In the case at bench, we hold that respondent was validly dismissed on
the grounds of willful disobedience and willful breach of trust under Article 282 of the
Labor Code. While petitioner’s manual of procedures does not absolutely prohibit the
negotiation or acceptance of second-endorsed checks for deposits, it does expressly
disallow the acceptance of checks endorsed by corporations, societies, firms, etc. and
checks with unusual endorsements. As shown by the records, this explicit policy was
transgressed by respondent intentionally and willfully. It was not denied that on June
27, 1996, respondent was instructed by management to stop accepting second-endorsed
checks due to the irregularities attendant to the transactions with Fuentes. Despite such
reasonable order, on two occasions, respondent unhesitatingly accommodated the
request of Fuentes to accept her checks allegedly on the strength of the Area Head’s
approval on the first instance and on the second instance, respondent justifies his
acceptance of the checks as the same were nevertheless returned and cancelled on the
ground that the checks include those payable to corporations. Indeed, the return and
cancellation of these checks do not change the fact that respondent had accepted for
deposit checks which are payable to corporations, thereby flagrantly violating bank
guidelines. Respondent admittedly disobeyed not only his superiors’ directives but also
simple bank rules. Moreover, in the investigation conducted on September 2, 1996,
Gabriel observed that the signatures appearing at the back of the checks accepted by
respondent bore the same strokes. As correctly noted by the Labor Arbiter, the
negotiation of checks by hundreds of payees to only one individual should have alerted
respondent as to the authenticity of the endorsements. These considerations have
convinced the Court that the PLDT dividend checks indeed contain unusual and
suspicious endorsements and cannot be overruled by the mere denial of respondent.
Separation pay should not be awarded in favor of respondent.