G.R. No. 176800 - ELMER LOPEZ, VS. KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, INC., MANUEL BOSANO III AND STEFAN TONG WAI MUN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the labor arbiter ordered Lopez's immediate reinstatement, and awarded him backwages of P392,000.00, moral and exemplary damages of P8M, and P550,000.00 -- the purchase price of a Toyota Revo which Lopez allegedly brought over from his stint with Global Bank (now Metrobank). The labor arbiter found that contrary to the bank's claim, the evidence showed that Lopez had been issuing POs which the bank had paid, including the first of the two POs that led to his dismissal. [10] On appeal by the bank, the National Labor Relations Commission ( NLRC ) rendered a decision on October 11, 2005 [11] reversing the labor arbiter's ruling. It dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC found merit in the bank's submission that by issuing the questioned POs without authority and against the bank's express orders, Lopez thereby committed a willful disobedience against his superiors -- a sufficient basis for the bank to lose its trust and confidence in him as branch manager. It thus found that Lopez had been dismissed for cause after the observance of due process. Lopez moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion in its resolution of January 25, 2006. [12] Lopez sought relief from the CA through a petition for certiorari, charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion for setting aside the labor arbiter's decision. The CA Decision On December 19, 2006, the CA rendered its now assailed decision, [13] denying the petition and affirming the October 11, 2005 decision of the NLRC. It fully agreed with the NLRC finding that Lopez had not been illegally dismissed. Lopez moved for, but failed to obtain, a reconsideration of the CA decision. The CA denied the motion on February 7, 2007. [14] The Case for Lopez Through the present petition, [15] the reply to the bank's comment dated February 11, 2008, [16] and the memorandum dated September 22, 2008, [17] Lopez entreats the Court to nullify the CA decision, contending that the CA erred in: (1) not ruling that the bank's appeal with the NLRC should have been dismissed on the ground of non-perfection; and (2) affirming the decision of the NLRC that he was dismissed for a just cause (loss of trust and confidence) and that he was afforded due process. Lopez argues, with respect to the first assignment of error, that the bank failed to comply with Sections 4 and 6, Rule VI, of the 2002 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. [18] He points out that the bank did not file a notice of appeal together with its memorandum of appeal, which in turn was not supported by a certificate of non-forum shopping; and neither did the bank furnish him, as appellee, a certified copy of the appeal bond. On the substantive aspect of the case, Lopez posits that the bank failed to justify his dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. He insists that, as branch manager, he had the authority to issue POs as in fact he issued several of them in the past, which POs were honored and paid by the bank. The labor