Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sarmiento
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Elizabeth G. Sarmiento (respondent), Assistant Manager of Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) España Branch, was investigated for anomalous transactions. From October 10, 1987, to June 30, 1988, she did not regularly report for work but received her full salary totaling P116,003.52. BPI demanded the return of this amount, claiming it was mistakenly paid as she did not work. Sarmiento refused, stating she was verbally instructed by Vice President Arturo Kimseng of the Audit Department to stop reporting for work during the investigation. Procedural History: BPI filed a complaint for sum of money against Sarmiento. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding solutio indebiti inapplicable and ruling that Sarmiento, as a managerial employee, was entitled to her salary as there was no proof she ceased rendering service, and her claim of being instructed not to report was unrebutted. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the payment of salary was correct and Sarmiento had no obligation to return it. BPI's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: BPI filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's findings that Sarmiento was verbally instructed not to report for work and that the payment of her salary was correct, arguing these conclusions were based on misapprehension of facts, speculation, and without basis.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the sole issue was whether respondent Sarmiento was verbally instructed by Vice President Arturo Kimseng not to report for work. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower court's view that respondent Sarmiento was enjoined from reporting for work during the investigation. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the payment of salary to respondent Sarmiento was correct and her receipt was legal, based on speculation. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing BPI's appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the sole issue was whether respondent Sarmiento was verbally instructed by Vice President Arturo Kimseng not to report for work: The Supreme Court held that the questions raised by the petitioner, specifically whether respondent was verbally instructed not to report for work and whether the Vice President had the authority to give such an instruction, are patently questions of fact. Such factual issues are beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that only questions of law may be raised. The Court found no substantial question of law presented by the petitioner that would warrant a deviation from the established findings of fact by the lower courts. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower court's view that respondent Sarmiento was enjoined from reporting for work during the investigation: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the CA. It was established that respondent was still an employee of the petitioner during the period in question, as her termination was only on August 26, 1988, and she was not suspended. The Court agreed with the CA that respondent could not be faulted for not reporting for work because she merely complied with the verbal instruction of AVP Kimseng. While AVP Kimseng denied giving such instruction, the trial court gave more credence to the respondent's testimony, and the Supreme Court upholds the trial court's evaluation of witness credibility due to its direct observation of demeanor. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the payment of salary to respondent Sarmiento was correct and her receipt was legal, based on speculation: The Court found that the payment of salary to respondent Sarmiento during the period in question was correct and her receipt was legal, thus she had no obligation to return it. The petitioner's basis for recovery was the principle of solutio indebiti. However, the Court found both elements of solutio indebiti to be lacking. Firstly, an employer-employee relationship existed during the period, entitling respondent to salary. Secondly, the payment was not mistaken, as it was made with the knowledge and approval of superior officers, and respondent was not suspended. The Court also noted that the Branch Manager allowed respondent's prolonged absence without calling her attention, which is only plausible if she had relayed AVP Kimseng's instruction, and that her salary and benefits were paid without qualification. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing BPI's appeal: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and that the CA's findings of fact are conclusive and binding, unless exceptions apply, none of which were found in this case. The Court found no substantial question of law presented by the petitioner. The factual findings of the CA, which were based on the RTC's evaluation of evidence and testimony, were deemed correct and supported by the records. Therefore, the dismissal of BPI's appeal by the CA was upheld.
Main Doctrine
The principle of solutio indebiti does not apply when an employer-employee relationship subsists and the payment of salary, even if the employee did not report for work due to a verbal instruction from a superior, was made with the knowledge and approval of immediate superior officers. The employer's claim of mistaken payment is untenable if the employee was still considered an employee and not suspended.