Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • UCPB v. Basco (G.R. No. 142668)

    Uploaded by

    Danilo Jr. Forro
    36 views1 page
    UCPB terminated Basco's employment and issued a memorandum barring him from entering any UCPB premises. Basco later went to the UCPB Makati branch to receive a check and deposit money for a friend. Security guards approached Basco and told him to leave, but allowed him to finish his transactions. However, a security guard then prevented Basco from approaching a bank employee to receive his check. The court ruled that while UCPB could prohibit non-employees from restricted areas, the broad memorandum barring Basco from all premises violated his rights as a stockholder and depositor by being arbitrary and capricious.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    UCPB vs. Basco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    UCPB terminated Basco's employment and issued a memorandum barring him from entering any UCPB premises. Basco later went to the UCPB Makati branch to receive a check and deposit money for a friend. Security guards approached Basco and told him to leave, but allowed him to finish his transactions. However, a security guard then prevented Basco from approaching a bank employee to receive his check. The court ruled that while UCPB could prohibit non-employees from restricted areas, the broad memorandum barring Basco from all premises violated his rights as a stockholder and depositor by being arbitrary and capricious.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    UCPB v. Basco (G.R. No. 142668)

    Uploaded by

    Danilo Jr. Forro
    UCPB terminated Basco's employment and issued a memorandum barring him from entering any UCPB premises. Basco later went to the UCPB Makati branch to receive a check and deposit money for a friend. Security guards approached Basco and told him to leave, but allowed him to finish his transactions. However, a security guard then prevented Basco from approaching a bank employee to receive his check. The court ruled that while UCPB could prohibit non-employees from restricted areas, the broad memorandum barring Basco from all premises violated his rights as a stockholder and depositor by being arbitrary and capricious.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    UCPB v.

    Basco
    (G.R. No. 142668)
    Facts:
    Respondent Basco was terminated of his employment with the bank for grave abuse of discretion and
    authority and breach of trust as Bank Operations Manager and thereafter files a complaint for illegal
    dismissal. The UCPB issued a memorandum to its Security Department instructing it not to allow
    respondent access to all bank premises. Respondent’s counsel requested for reconsideration but UCPB
    informed him that the request could not be granted. Sometime after, respondent went to UCPB Makati
    branch to receive a check and deposit money for a friend. Respondent alleges that while waiting for his
    transaction, two security guards approached him and told him to leave the premises. Respondent pleaded
    that he be allowed to finish his transactions before leaving and was allowed. Thereafter, respondent
    pleaded that he be allowed to finish his transactions before leaving and was allowed. Thereafter,
    respondent was motioned by the bank employee to get the check he was to receive but all the security
    guard tapped and prevented him from approaching. The bank employee then walked towards the
    respondent to hand him check. Because of tremendous humiliation and embarrassment, respondent
    instituted this action for damages against petitioner with the RTC. The trial court ruled in favour of
    respondent.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the petitioner bank abused its right when it issued the Memorandum barring the respondent
    access to all bank premises;
    Ruling:
    Yes. It agree that the petitioner may prohibit non-employees from entering the working area of the ATM
    section. However, under the said Memorandum, even if the respondent wished to go to the bank to encash
    a check drawn and issued to him by a depositor of the petitioner bank in payment of an obligation, or to
    withdraw from his account therein, or to transact business with the said bank and exercise his right as a
    depositor, he could not do so as he was barred from entry into the bank. Even if the respondent wanted to
    go to the petitioner bank to confer with the corporate secretary in connection with his shares of stock
    therein, he could not do so, since as stated in the Memorandum of petitioner Ongsiapco, he would not be
    allowed access to all the bank premises. The said Memorandum, as worded, violates the right of the
    respondent as a stockholder or a depositor of the petitioner bank, for being capricious and arbitrary.

    You might also like