Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bpi Vs NLRC
Bpi Vs NLRC
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure, as amended, seeks to partially reverse the Decision[1] of 28 October 1998
and the Resolution[2] of 08 March 1999 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No.
47363, which affirmed with modification the Decision [3] rendered by the Accredited
Voluntary Arbitrator dated 31 December 1997, in VA Case No. 08-001-97. The case
before the Voluntary Arbitrator was for illegal transfer and termination, with the latter
ruling in favor of the petitioners herein.
The facts as narrated by the Court of Appeals are quoted hereunder:
On 26 October 1995, respondent[4] Zenaida V. Uy, former teller of the Escolta Branch
of BPI, shouted at her Senior Manager, petitioner[5] Delfin D. Santos (Santos for
brevity). Uy was told to go to the office of the petitioner Carlos B. Fragante, BPIs
area head and Assistant Vice President, to discuss her complaint. On the same date,
AVP Fragante told Uy to transfer to the nearby Plaza Cervantes Branch of BPI and
report to its operations manager to defuse (sic) the tense situation prevailing at the
Escolta Branch. On 27 October 1995, AVP Fragante received the report of the Escolta
Branch Manager (Santos) on the shouting incident, together with the written letterreports of some branch personnel. On the same day, AVP Fragante ordered Uy to
transfer to the Plaza Cervantes Branch. Upon receipt of the order, Uy commented that
she will not transfer and will await the result of the grievance meeting. The
respondent BPI Employees Union initiated a grievance proceeding against the BPI
Management for the transfer of Uy to the Plaza Cervantes Branch. A meeting was set
for 30 October 1995. On 30 October 1995, AVP Fragante sent Uy a letter . . .
directing her to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for insubordination, for not paying heed to the order to transfer. Uy sent a
reply on the same date . . . explaining that she could not transfer from Escolta Branch
because there was no proper turnover of her accountabilities; that she was not able to
do so on October 27, 1995 because she was not allowed to open (as a teller); and, that
since then she has been barred from entering the bank premises. On the same day, a
meeting was held to hear Uys grievance relative to her transfer, but no agreement
was reached. On 31 October 1995, AVP Fragante sent Uy another letter . . . asking her
to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for uttering
disrespectful, discourteous, insulting and unbecoming language to her superior, Senior
Manager Delfin Santos. Uy sent an undated reply thereto . . . reiterating why she
could just not leave her position at the Escolta Branch, and requesting that she be
considered on leave starting November 2, 1995. On 13 November 1995, AVP
Fragante wrote Uy another letter . . . directing her to show cause on or before 16
November 1995 why no disciplinary action, including possible termination, should be
taken against her for the October 26, 1995 incident, for insubordination or defiance to
the transfer order, and for going on absence without leave. A copy thereof was
furnished the Union. Uy sent a reply letter dated November 20, 1995, asking for
particulars relative to the alleged highly disrespectful, discourteous, insulting,
threatening, and unbecoming language and behavior towards your Manager, Delfin
Santos and on the alleged past instances when she was involved with quarrels with
your co-employees, and alleging that she felt binabastos mo ako (I was being
sexually harassed) when he uttered Dito ka na lang, marami and [ang] lalaki dito
(You just stay here, there are plenty of men here), and when she answered Hindi ako
mahilig sa lalaki (I am not fond of men), he retorted, Maski dito ka na lang sa
kuwarto ko (You may just stay here in my room . . .). The union asked for a
suspension of the grievance machinery and for investigation of the sexual
harassment charge. On November 24, 1995, Uy requested Management through Mr.
Oscar L. Cervantes, for transfer to the Taft Avenue Branch to save on gasoline
expenses. Two meetings were held between the union side and the management side,
represented by Mr. Fragantes superior, Senior Vice President Alberto Jugo and
Senior Manager Efren Tuble. When no agreement was reached, the management
advised Uy and the Union as well as their counsel that the management had no choice
but to terminate Uy. Both the union and Uy were sent copies of the Notice of
Termination . . . dated December 8, 1995, which had the following tenor:
NOTICE OF TERMINATION
It has been established that you used highly disrespectful, discourteous, insulting,
threatening and unbecoming language and behavior towards your branch manager,
Delfin Santos, last October 26. Despite being given the chance to explain or justify
your actions, you chose to skirt the issue by pointing out that I am in no position to
make a conclusion as I was not around when the incident happened. You know fully
well that as Sales Director of North Manila area having supervision over Escolta
Branch, such incident was reported to me. Mr. Delfin Santos appropriately inhibited
himself from conducting the investigation for obvious reasons. We disagree with you
when you dismissed the incident as trivial. Moreover, the explanations you gave at
our Head Office were found wanting in circumstances that would absolve you or
mitigate your wrongdoing as said explanations in fact confirmed the findings at the
branch level. With regard to quarrels with your officemates, you can be considered as
recidivist. You can of course recall your quarrels, using very strong and insulting
words, with your co-employees Ms. Teresa Manalang last year and with Jocelyn Ng
this year.
You refused to follow the transfer instruction to report to Cervantes Branch last
October 27 alleging failure to properly turn over your accountabilities despite being in
the branch for practically the whole day on October 27. We have adequate procedure
for the opening of pico boxes in the presence of witnesses in cases of refusal and
AWOL.
In a further manifestation of your contempt towards managerial authority, you went
on absence without leave starting October 30. After refusing to receive all
communications sent to your residence, you tried to rectify this AWOL by sending an
undated letter received by us last November 6 wherein you declared yourself to be on
leave beginning November 2. You have since refused to report for work.
Under the circumstances, you left us with no alternative but to terminate your
employment with us.
(SGD.) CARLOS B. FRAGANTE
Asst. Vice President
Uy filed a case for illegal transfer and termination. On June 29, 1996, Labor Arbiter
Manuel R. Caday who initially heard and decided the case issued a decision declaring
the dismissal of Uy as illegal and ordering her reinstatement with full backwages and
10% attorneys fees BPI appealed the said decision to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which rendered a decision on May 28, 1997, setting aside the
Labor Arbiters Decision for lack of jurisdiction, and ruling that the case falls under
the jurisdiction of a Voluntary Arbitrator.
The case was raffled to respondent Arbitrator Entuna, who requested the parties to
submit their respective position papers.[6]
The Voluntary Arbitrator, in his disputed Decision of 31 December 1997, adjudged:
similar case filed or pending in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency that may
thereafter come to their knowledge in accordance with Section 4(e), Rule 45 in relation
to Section 5, Rule 7, Section 2, Rule 42, and Sections 4 and 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules
of Court. The corresponding Entry of Judgment[10] was entered in the Book of Entries of
Judgments on 22 September 1999.
For the reason above stated, only the following errors imputed by herein petitioners
Bank of the Philippine Islands Employees Union (BPIEU) and Uy to the appellate court
are in issue:
I
With the new law before us, we clarified the computation of backwages due an
employee on account of his illegal dismissal from employment in the case of Osmalik
Bustamante, et al. v. NLRC and Evergreen Farms, Inc.[15] We held that the passing of
Republic Act No. 6715,[16] particularly Section 34,[17] which took effect on 21 March
1989, amended Article 279 of the Labor Code, which now states in part:
Fragante. The other respondents, namely Alberto Jugo and Oscar Contreras were
impleaded merely because of their position in respondent BPIs Human Resources
Department. In the words of the petitioners, the controversy was a personal
matter between Ms. Uy and Messrs. Delfin Santos and Carlos Fragante.[21] In addition,
they bolstered their position by relying on what this Court had to say in Globe-Mackay
Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC:[22]
The said case went on further to quote our pronouncement in the case of Almira v.
B.F. Goodrich, Philippines, Inc.:[25]
This Court is cognizant of managements right to select the people who will manage
its business as well as its right to dismiss them. However, this right cannot be abused.
Its exercise must always be tempered with compassion and understanding. As former
Chief Justice Enrique Fernando eloquently put it:
Where penalty less severe would suffice, whatever missteps may be committees by
labor ought not to be visited with consequence so severe. It is not only because of the
laws concern for the workingmen. There is, in addition, his family to consider.
Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wageearner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided if
there be acceptance of the view that under all the circumstances of a case, the workers
should not be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone what has
been done by them.
Moreover, it has been almost a decade since the incident that led to the dismissal of
petitioner Uy occurred. Petitioner Uy contends, and the respondents do not contradict,
that respondent Carlos Fragante has long been assigned in another area and Messrs.
Alberto Jugo and Oscar Contreras are no longer connected with respondent BPI.
Considering, thus, that there now appears no more basis for strained relations between
the present management and petitioner Uy, reinstatement is possible.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed 28 October 1998
Decision and 8 March 1999 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby MODIFIED
as follows: 1) respondent BPI is DIRECTED to pay petitioner Uy backwages from the
time of her illegal dismissal until her actual reinstatement; and 2) respondent BPI is
ORDERED to reinstate petitioner Uy to her former position, or to a substantially
equivalent one, without loss of seniority right and other benefits attendant to the
position.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.