Premiere Development Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teodora Labanda, a teller at Premiere Development Bank's Taytay Branch, accepted a check for deposit. Due to a misposting by the bank's bookkeeper, the check was erroneously credited to the depositor's account instead of the intended recipient's account, leading to an overstatement of the depositor's balance. The bank discovered the misposting when the depositor's wife complained. The bank sent a demand letter to Labanda for an explanation. Subsequently, the bank's internal auditors reported Labanda and the bookkeeper primarily liable for the incident due to the lack of end-of-the-day balancing between them. The bank then demanded Labanda shoulder 20% of the loss via salary deduction, which she objected to. Labanda was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation. During the inquiry, Labanda refused to sign preliminary statements without her husband's consent and was deemed uncooperative by the bank. The bank rescheduled hearings multiple times, warning that failure to attend would be taken as a tacit admission of liability. The bookkeeper admitted liability and was allowed to resign. Labanda, through her counsel, demanded P50,000.00 in damages for alleged arbitrary and illegal acts, which the bank ignored. Procedural History: Labanda filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied the bank's motion to dismiss. The bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the case without prejudice to refiling with the labor arbiter. The CA decision became final. Eight months after the CA decision became final and two years after her alleged termination, Labanda filed an illegal dismissal case before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case, ruling that Labanda abandoned her job by filing the complaint for damages and that there was no dismissal, much less illegal dismissal, nor denial of due process. The Petition: On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, ruling that Labanda's indefinite preventive suspension amounted to constructive dismissal. The NLRC found that the bank failed to adhere to due process requirements and that the suspension was not based on Labanda's culpability but was a means to force her to submit to an inquiry. The NLRC declared the separation illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising issues of Labanda's negligence, the illegality of her preventive suspension, and abandonment of work.
Issue(s)
Whether or not private respondent Labanda was negligent for the misposting of the deposit of subject check. Whether or not public respondent NLRC gravely erred in ruling that said preventive suspension imposed by petitioners for above-mentioned incident is illegal and violative of private respondent Labanda's rights to due process. Whether or not private respondent Labanda abandoned her job with petitioner bank. Whether the filing of a complaint for damages by respondent Labanda against the petitioners amounts to abandonment; and whether the NLRC's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, finding that respondent Labanda was illegally dismissed from employment without due process of law and did not abandon her job. The indefinite preventive suspension imposed on her was deemed constructive dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence: The Court did not explicitly rule on Labanda's negligence regarding the misposting. However, the Court focused on the issues of preventive suspension, due process, and abandonment. On the issue of preventive suspension and due process: The Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that Labanda's preventive suspension was without valid cause and violated due process. The suspension, which lasted beyond the 30-day statutory period, amounted to constructive dismissal. The NLRC correctly observed that the suspension was indefinite and deprived Labanda of her right to security of employment. The Court reiterated that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process. Even if abandonment were present, notice still had to be served upon the employee at her last known address. The bank's arbitrary exercise of its prerogative to terminate services, without adhering to due process, undermined the guarantee of security of tenure. The Court also found no merit in the bank's allegation of laches, as Labanda filed her illegal dismissal case within the four-year prescriptive period provided by law for actions predicated on injury to rights. On the issue of abandonment of work: The Court held that Labanda's failure to report for work was due to her indefinite suspension, which was found to be constructive dismissal. Her filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment. The burden of proof rests on the employer to show a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment, which Premiere Development Bank failed to discharge. The Court noted that Labanda actively fought for her rights by filing actions for damages and illegal dismissal, indicating an intent to preserve, not sever, her employment. On the issue of abandonment (filing of complaint) and NLRC findings: The Court held that filing a complaint for damages against an employer does not constitute abandonment of work. To establish abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) failure to report for work without a valid reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the latter being the more determinative factor. The Court reiterated that questions of fact are not proper subjects of a petition for certiorari, and the power of the Supreme Court in labor cases is limited to questions of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the NLRC's findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, such findings were accorded respect and finality on appeal. The Court agreed with the NLRC and the Solicitor General that Labanda did not abandon her job and that her separation was illegal and unjust. Considering her 10 years of service and lack of previous infractions, the NLRC's order for reinstatement with three-year backwages was deemed just and equitable, as dismissal would be too severe a penalty.
Main Doctrine
Filing a complaint for damages against an employer does not constitute abandonment of work, especially when the employee's absence from work is due to an indefinite preventive suspension which amounts to constructive dismissal. The employer must still observe due process requirements, including proper notice, even in cases of alleged abandonment.