4 Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals - Digest

LEGAL ETHICS | DIGESTS | 1D
Case No. <4>: <Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals>

G.R. No. 144412. November 18, 2003
Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS:
Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired by petitioner Allied Banking
Corporation as accountant-book(k)eeper and was promoted to assistant manager. His
appointment was covered by a “Notice of Personnel Action” which provides as one of the
conditions of employment the provision on petitioner’s right to transfer employees as the
need arises and in the interest of maintaining smooth and uninterrupted service to the public.
Effecting a rotation/movement of officers assigned in the Cebu homebase, petitioner
listed respondent as second in the order of priority of assistant managers to be assigned
outside of Cebu City having been stationed in Cebu for seven years already. Private
respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred to Bacolod City citing as reason parental
obligations, expenses, and the anguish that would result if he is away from his family. He then
filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.
Petitioner then informed private respondent that he was to report to the Tagbilaran City
Branch but was again refused by the latter. Petitioner warned of private respondent of the
penalty for refusing the transfer assignment ranging from suspension to dismissal as
determined by management and required the private respondent to explain in writing why no
disciplinary action should be meted against him
Galanida replied that “(w)hether the bank’s penalty for my refusal be Suspension or
Dismissal it will all the more establish and fortify his complaint now pending at NLRC. In the
same letter, he charged Allied Bank with discrimination and favoritism in ordering his transfer
the ulterior motive is to accommodate some new officers who happen to enjoy favorable
connection with management.
Galanida received an inter-office communication (“Memo”) on October 1994 informing
Galanida that Allied Bank had terminated his services effective 1 September 1994. The
reasons given for the dismissal were: (1) Galanida’s continued refusal to be transferred from
the Jakosalem, Cebu City branch; and (2) his refusal to report for work despite the denial of
his application for additional vacation leave.
After several hearings, the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank had abused its
management prerogative in ordering the transfer of Galanida to its Bacolod and Tagbilaran
branches. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that Galanida’s transfer was inconvenient and
prejudicial because Galanida would have to incur additional expenses for board, lodging and
travel.
On the other hand, the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank failed to show any business
urgency that would justify the transfer. Still, the Labor Arbiter declined to award Galanida
back wages because he was not entirely free from blame. Since another bank had already
employed Galanida, the Labor Arbiter granted Galanida separation pay in lieu of
Reinstatement in the aggregate amount of P324,000.00. On appeal, the NLRC likewise ruled
that Allied Bank terminated Galanida without just cause. The NLRC ruled that Galanida’s
termination was illegal for lack of due process. The NLRC stated that Allied Bank did not
conduct any hearing. The NLRC declared that Allied Bank failed to send a termination notice,
as required by law for a valid termination. The Memo merely stated that Allied Bank would
issue a notice of termination, but the bank did not issue any notice.
The NLRC concluded that Allied Bank dismissed Galanida in bad faith, tantamount to
an unfair labor practice as the dismissal undermined Galanida’s right to security of tenure and
equal protection of the laws. Allied Bank filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC
denied in its Resolution of 24 December 1998.
Dissatisfied, Allied Bank filed a petition for review questioning the Decision and
Resolution of the NLRC before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling
of the NLRC. Allied Bank filed a motion for reconsideration which the appellate court denied.
Allied Bank appealed the appellate court’s decision and resolution to the Supreme Court
praying the (1) issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction ex
parte to restrain the implementation or execution of the questioned Decision and Resolution;
(2) declare Galanida’s termination as valid and legal; (3) set aside the Court of Appeals’
Decision and Resolution; (4) make permanent the restraining order or preliminary injunction;
(5) order Galanida to pay the costs; and (6) order other equitable reliefs.
ISSUE:
PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME):

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION COURT OF APPEALS and POTENCIANO L.
GALANIDA
SC RULING:
The petition is partly meritorious.
The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and, worse, the assailed Decision of the
Labor Arbiter, both misquoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dosch v. NLRC. The Court held
in Dosch:
We cannot agree to Northwest’s submission that petitioner was guilty of disobedience
and insubordination which respondent Commission sustained. The only piece of evidence on
which Northwest bases the charge of contumacious refusal is petitioner’s letter dated August
28, 1975 to R.C. Jenkins wherein petitioner acknowledged receipt of the former’s
memorandum dated August 18, 1975, appreciated his promotion to Director of International
Sales but at the same time regretted “that at this time for personal reasons and reasons of my
family, I am unable to accept the transfer from the Philippines” and thereafter expressed his
preference to remain in his position, saying: “I would, therefore, prefer to remain in my position
of Manager-Philippines until such time that my services in that capacity are no longer required
by Northwest Airlines.” From this evidence, we cannot discern even the slightest hint of
defiance, much less imply insubordination on the part of petitioner.
The phrase “[r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered insubordination
where employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that of being away from the family”
does not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision. Galanida’s counsel lifted the erroneous
phrase from one of the italicized lines in the syllabus of Dosch found in the Supreme Court
Reports Annotated (“SCRA”).
The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court decisions or
resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does it state this Court’s decision. The syllabus is
simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of the decision. The reporter
writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in reading the reports. A syllabus is not a
part of the court’sdecision.20 A counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully
considered text in the decision of the Court.
In the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty. Durano began by quoting from
Dosch, but substituted a portion of the decision with a headnote from the SCRA syllabus,
which they even underscored. In short, they deliberately made the quote from the SCRA
syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme Court. We admonish them for what is at the
least patent carelessness, if not an outright attempt to mislead the parties and the courts
taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text
of a decision or authority. It is the duty of all officers of the court to cite the rulings and
decisions of the Supreme Court accurately
Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante and Atty. Loreto M. Durano are ADMONISHED
to be more careful in citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in the future.

4 Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL ETHICS | DIGESTS | 1D

Case No. <4>: <Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals>

PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME):

You might also like