Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Jacinto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Nilda S. Jacinto, an employee of Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank) since 1971, was assigned as a customer relation assistant (CRA) and acted as alternate FX Clerk or Teller. On April 30, 1984, the bank discovered the loss of travelers checks amounting to P25,325.00, transacted on the same day. Private respondent acted as FX clerk on that day as the regular FX clerk was on leave. Procedural History: Following an investigation, PCI Bank found private respondent guilty of gross negligence. She was suspended for ten (10) days without pay and required to pay the lost amount through salary deductions and bonuses. She was also transferred to another branch. Private respondent filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) questioning the suspension, penalty, and transfer. The Labor Arbiter found the suspension and deductions unjustified, ordered the erasure of these from her record, and directed the return of deducted amounts. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision with modification, stating that the transfer was a management prerogative. The Petition: PCI Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that gross negligence could not be attributed to respondent Jacinto as she was not formally designated as an FX Clerk.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent Nilda S. Jacinto can be held liable for gross negligence despite not being formally designated as an FX Clerk. Whether the penalty imposed by PCI Bank on private respondent was proper and justified.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The questioned decision of the NLRC is reversed and set aside, and the complaint of private respondent is dismissed. However, the penalty imposed by petitioner on private respondent is modified, requiring her to indemnify petitioner the amount of P12,600.00 through regular payroll deductions.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether private respondent can be held liable for gross negligence despite not being formally designated as an FX Clerk: The Court held that private respondent actually performed the duties of an FX clerk on April 30, 1984, upon verbal request. In performing these duties, she assumed the responsibilities of the position. The lack of a formal written designation does not excuse her from liability for negligence. She failed to properly account for the travelers checks, did not microfilm them, and did not formally endorse the FX box, especially knowing the lock was defective. Therefore, the finding of gross negligence by the petitioner was well-taken. Any employee entrusted with responsibility must perform the task assigned with care and dedication, and failing to do so makes them liable for the consequences of their negligence. On whether the penalty imposed by PCI Bank was proper and justified: The Court found the ten (10) days suspension without pay to be a proper penalty in accordance with the bank's rules. However, the requirement for private respondent to reimburse the full value of the loss was deemed too harsh. The Court considered that the bank also contributed to the loss by failing to repair the defective lock of the FX box and neglecting other security measures. Consequently, the penalty was mitigated. Private respondent was required to reimburse only one-half (1/2) of the loss, amounting to P12,600.00, through salary deductions, as a more equitable measure.
Main Doctrine
An employee entrusted with a task, even if verbally requested and not formally designated, assumes the responsibilities of the position and can be held liable for negligence in its performance. However, the penalty imposed must be proportionate, considering the employer's own contributions to the loss.