Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    DIGEST Equitable PCI Bank V Caguioa

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Poblador
    Gene Caguioa, a senior manager at Equitable PCI Bank, was involved in an unauthorized check discounting scheme that resulted in losses for a client. An investigation found substantial evidence of Gene's participation, including letters and records showing deposits that matched the client's losses. The bank dismissed Gene and forfeited her retirement benefits. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal and forfeiture, finding the bank presented substantial evidence of wrongdoing and that such a penalty was a valid exercise of management discretion for a breach of trust by a managerial employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DIGEST Equitable PCI Bank V Caguioa

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Poblador
    98 views2 pages
    Gene Caguioa, a senior manager at Equitable PCI Bank, was involved in an unauthorized check discounting scheme that resulted in losses for a client. An investigation found substantial evidence of Gene's participation, including letters and records showing deposits that matched the client's losses. The bank dismissed Gene and forfeited her retirement benefits. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal and forfeiture, finding the bank presented substantial evidence of wrongdoing and that such a penalty was a valid exercise of management discretion for a breach of trust by a managerial employee.

    Original Description:

    digest for case

    Original Title

    DIGEST Equitable PCI Bank v Caguioa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gene Caguioa, a senior manager at Equitable PCI Bank, was involved in an unauthorized check discounting scheme that resulted in losses for a client. An investigation found substantial evidence of Gene's participation, including letters and records showing deposits that matched the client's losses. The bank dismissed Gene and forfeited her retirement benefits. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal and forfeiture, finding the bank presented substantial evidence of wrongdoing and that such a penalty was a valid exercise of management discretion for a breach of trust by a managerial employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views2 pages

    DIGEST Equitable PCI Bank V Caguioa

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Poblador
    Gene Caguioa, a senior manager at Equitable PCI Bank, was involved in an unauthorized check discounting scheme that resulted in losses for a client. An investigation found substantial evidence of Gene's participation, including letters and records showing deposits that matched the client's losses. The bank dismissed Gene and forfeited her retirement benefits. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal and forfeiture, finding the bank presented substantial evidence of wrongdoing and that such a penalty was a valid exercise of management discretion for a breach of trust by a managerial employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Equitable PCI Bank v.

    Caguioa
    G.R. No. 159170 Aug 12, 2005 J. Panganiban
    petitioners Equitable PCI Bank and Wilfredo Vergara
    respondents Generosa Caguioa
    summary Gene was involved in unauthorized check discounting schemes which lead to a clients
    prejudice who in turn filed a complaint. Gene was found guilty of violating petitioners
    code of conduct and was dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits. The SC held, in
    light of the substantial evidence petitioner presented, that the dismissal was valid as well
    as the forfeiture of her retirement benefits.

    facts of the case


    Gene was a Senior Manager employed by petitioner for 35 years who was subsequently dismissed because
    of her participation in an unauthorized check discounting scheme. This was brought to light because of the
    complaint of their client Antonio Jarina regarding the same which cost him considerable damage. The scheme
    was that Jarina would withdraw his funds and invest them in a new investment involving discounted checks
    facilitated by Gene. In the end, petitioner found Gene guilty of violating its Code of Conduct, warranting her
    dismissal from service and termination of employment under 282c LC. Her penalty was dismissal with
    AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
    LA: Gene was validly dismissed, as an exercise of management prerogative because of her violations of
    petioners code of conduct,
    NLRC: Reversed LA decision, and ruled Genes reinstatement without loss of seniority rights.
    CA: Gene was illegally dismissed. The revelations made by Magadia were insufficient to justify Genes
    dismissal. The CA held them to be hearsay evidence because of petitioners failure to produce Magadias
    sworn statement.

    issue
    WON Genes dismissal was valid and for cause? YES.

    ratio
    The Court found it necessary to reexamine the evidence in light of conflicting resolutions among the LA,
    NLRC and CA, and in order to afford petitioner its due process rights.
    As employer, the burden of proof rests on petitioner to establish that the dismissal was valid. However, he
    only needs to adduce substantial evidence, that is, such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
    adequate to support a conclusion. From the records, such substantial evidence were:
    1. A letter identifying Gene as one of the bank personnel who used his deposit/funds in another kind of investment that would
    result in a higher yield.
    2. The affidavit of Jose Sibayan, an audit examiner tasked to investigate the complaint, making mention of certain documents that
    helped him in his investigation and how he acquired them.
    3. A schedule based on the bank records that shows deposits to Genes account was made on the same date as Mr. Jarinas account
    and reflects the 60-40 profit sharing arrangement in an unauthorized check discounting transactions.
    4. A letter showing that as early as Sept 26, Gene was already involved in the unauthorized check discounting transactions.
    5. Another letter stating expressing goodwill by sending Atty Mosclares P200,000 and hoping that her relationship with Atty
    Mosclares would not be affected by their problem with Nora.
    Her only defense against these pieces of evidence were denial, inadmissibility and lack of probative value
    of such evidence and a claim that she had a ready to wear business with her relative as stated by an affidavit.
    The Court held that the evidence presented by petitioner substantially proved Genes participation in the
    unauthorized check-discounting transactions. Petitioner admits, at the very least, that the match between
    Genes bank records and some entries in Jarinas ledger as coincidental but not all 21 instances. The letters
    gave her away, as it served as a jumping off point for a deeper investigation and a patient auditor would
    surely match the petitioners conclusion from the paper trail left.
    The Court here held that Genes plea for leniency because of her 35 years of service has already been
    compensated and it still cannot offset her dishonesty. The Court comments that even government employees
    1
    who are validly dismissed from service by reason of timely discovered offenses are deprived of retirement
    benefits. She cannot be afforded the same treatment as those who are loyal and code-abiding employees as it
    would demoralize the entire bank. Be it remembered that banks thrive on and endeavor to retain public trust
    and confidence, every violation of which must thus be accompanied by appropriate sanctions. Since Gene was a
    managerial employee, she may be dismissed for breach of trust and it is a valid exercise of management prerogative
    to dismiss someone who is found to have failed to meet the employers trust and confidence.

    You might also like