Citibank VS Gatchalian

Citibank N.A. vs. Gatchalian et.al. (G.R. No.
111222; January 18, 1995)
FACTS:
Emerita "Emy" Llonillo is an employee of Citibank N.A. with a position as clerk-typist/maker. Respondent
Llonillo, together with Teresita Supnad, her co-employee and Florence Verendia, an employee of Asian-
Pacific Broadcasting Company, Inc. (APBCI), were implicated in a scheme to defraud petitioner bank in
the amount of P740,000.00.
Petitioner bank received thirty-one (31) applications from alleged APBCI employees for the issuance of
Citibank credit cards, popularly known as Mastercard. Citibank verified the application forms via phone
and it was Florence Verendia who answered on behalf of the APBCI employees. Subsequently the
applications were approved, and new and unsigned cards were issued.
Petitioner bank's policy is for new and unsigned credit cards to be released only to the cardholders
concerned or their duly authorized representatives. However, a Citibank employee may himself take
delivery of new and unsigned credit cards after accomplishing a Card Pull-Out Request Form wherein the
employee assumes the responsibility of delivering the same to the cardholder concerned.
Teresita Supnad, an employee of petitioner bank and Florence Verendia, took delivery of nineteen (19)
credit cards issued in the name of the said alleged APBCI credit applicants.
On the other hand, on five (5) separate occasions, respondent Llonillo personally picked up the newly
approved and unsigned credit cards issued to the other seven (7) alleged APBCI employee and delivered
them to Verendia.
Later on, it was discovered that the application of alleged employees of APBCI employees were fictitious.
Supnad and Verendia falsified the signature of the alleged applicants and they used the credit cards to
purchase goods and avail of services from accredited commercial establishments worth more than
P200,000.00.
The bank then required Llonillo to explain her involvement and she admitted that she personally picked-
up (7) credit cards to help the bank deliver "fast, competent and problem-free service to clients." She
denied any involvement to the fraudulent use of credit cards and any knowledge of the fictitious
applications.
The bank investigated though a committee which later on recommended the termination of
respondent's employment with the bank for loss of trust and confidence and gross negligence.
Petitioner bank adopted the committee's recommendation and notified respondent of her immediate
dismissal. The bank also terminated the services of Supnad. In addition, it filed a case for estafa through
falsification of private/commercial documents against both Supnad and Verendia.
Pursuant to their existing Collective Bargaining Agreement, petitioner bank and respondent union
referred Llonillo's dismissal to the Grievance Machinery but the latter failed to resolve the controversy.
As a next step, the parties submitted the case for resolution to voluntary arbitrator Dr. Jose C.
Gatchalian. Gatchalian on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the bank ordered the
reinstatement of Llonillo without backwages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of Llonillo was proper based on loss of trust and confidence and gross
negligence.
RULING:
Yes, Llonillo committed acts gross negligence and resulted to loss of trust and confidence of the
employer.
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them.
The evidence on record succinctly established the gross negligence of respondent Llonillo. She admitted
that the first time she was asked by Verendia to pick up one of the newly approved and unused credit
cards, she immediately acceded. Yet at that time, she had not personally met nor previously seen
Verendia. When asked how she came to know to whom she would give the card, respondent Llonillo
responded that Verendia described herself over the phone and that was how she was able to identify
Verendia when she first met her. Thus, on the basis of a mere description over the telephone,
respondent Llonillo delivered the credit cards to Verendia.
The succeeding occasions when she delivered the other newly approved and unused credit cards to
Verendia also revealed respondent Llonillo's gross lack of care. Again, she admitted that Verendia would
call her up at the office to say she was enroute to the bank to get some of the newly approved and
unused credit cards. Under the pretext that Verendia had difficulty in finding a parking space within the
bank's premises, Verendia would request her to get the credit cards instead. Respondent Llonillo accede
to the requests. She got the new and unused credit cards and gave them to Verendia at the mezzanine
floor of the bank. It did not strike respondent Llonillo as strange that while Verendia allegedly found
difficulty in finding a parking space within the bank premises, yet she was always able to meet her at the
mezzanine floor of the bank to get the credit cards.
Respondent Llonillo's gross negligence also showed when she delivered the credit card issued to Marife
Bacuetes, another fictitious APBCI employee. She admitted that she gave the card to Verendia's
messenger, a person whom she had not seen before but who merely represented to her that he was the
messenger sent by Verendia to pick up the card. When queried about the identity of the said messenger,
respondent replied that she did not ask for the messenger's name. Neither did she ask the alleged
messenger or Verendia herself to sign a receipt evidencing their acceptance of the credit cards.
Respondent Llonillo claims as a defense that even if she did not pick up the seven (7) newly approved
and unused credit cards and deliver the same to Verendia, still, the latter could have gotten hold of the
same by herself. Respondent stresses that Verendia herself and bank employee Supnad were able to
personally pick up the other credit cards issued to fictitious APBCI employees. The possibility is beside
the point. It cannot obliterate the truth that she committed gross negligence in the delivery of the seven
(7) newly approved and unused credit cards to Verendia and her messenger.
We also rule that respondent Llonillo's negligence is both gross and habitual. It was proved that she
picked up the newly approved credit cards on five (5) separate occasions and delivered the same to
Verendia and the latter's messenger. Certainly, these repetitive acts and omissions bespeak of
habituality.

Citibank VS Gatchalian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citibank VS Gatchalian

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Citibank VS Gatchalian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citibank N.A. vs. Gatchalian et.al. (G.R. No.

111222; January 18, 1995)

You might also like