G.R. No. 109033 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND VICTORINO C. CRUZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and unfair labor practice is DISMISSED for lack of merit but respondent is ordered to pay TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS to complainant by way of financial assistance, without cost to both parties." The respondent Commission ruled that the dismissal of private respondent was justified, but it nonetheless also upheld the grant of financial assistance, citing as authority the case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission. [3] Before us, petitioner raises the sole issue of: [4] "WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE LABOR ARBITERS AWARD OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHO WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR CAUSE." The Solicitor General filed his Comment dated July 30, 1993 praying "that the petition be granted.- On the other hand, private respondent in his Comment dated March 22, 1993 asks for the dismissal of the petition. The petition is meritorious. There is no doubt that, as held by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the respondent NLRC, "x x x complainant was validly dismissed by respondent Bank x x x in conformity with Art. 282, par. A and B, to wit: Art 282. Termination by employer. -- An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties." As the private respondent did not contest the decision of the Labor Arbiter before the NLRC, nor the Decision of the respondent Commission before this Court through a petition for certiorari, no affirmative relief can be sought by him; the sole issue before this Court being raised by petitioner disputing the award of P20,000.00 as financial assistance. We agree with the Solicitor General that the grant of financial assistance to the private respondent is unjustified. Said the Solicitor General: [5] "There is no doubt that private respondent is guilty of serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders of his employer, although the NLRC has watered it down to gross negligence. By disregarding a company rule, private respondent had made it possible for a co-employee to defraud petitioner in the amount of P1,717,508.64 - certainly not a picayune sum. His reason that he did it at the behest of Hilario Garcia and that Garcia alone benefited from the funds is highly incredible. It is simply unbelievable that he would risk his untainted record and long years of service with petitioner merely to accommodate Garcias request. Although collusion was not proven, it is not far-fetched to assume that both private respondent and Hilario Garcia shared the proceeds from the defraudation of petitioners funds. The fact that private respondent has worked with petitioner for more t