G.R. NO. 164772 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION (NOW KNOWN AS EQUITABLE-PCI BANK), VS. RICARDO SADAC. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, let the Decision of October 2, 1990 be, as it is hereby, SET ASIDE, and a new one ENTERED declaring the dismissal of the complainant as illegal, and consequently ordering the respondents jointly and severally to reinstate him to his former position as bank Vice-President and General Counsel without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay him full backwages and other benefits from the time his compensation was withheld to his actual reinstatement, as well as moral damages of P100,000.00, exemplary damages of P50,000.00, and attorney's fees equivalent to Ten Percent (10%) of the monetary award. Should reinstatement be no longer possible due to strained relations, the respondents are ordered likewise jointly and severally to grant separation pay at one (1) month per year of service in the total sum of P293,650.00 with backwages and other benefits from November 16, 1989 to September 15, 1991 (cut off date, subject to adjustment) computed at P1,055,740.48, plus damages of P100,000.00 (moral damages), P50,000.00 (exemplary damages) and attorney's fees equal to Ten Percent (10%) of all the monetary award, or a grand total of P1,649,329.53. [7] Petitioner Bank came to us for the first time via a Special Civil Action for Certiorari assailing the NLRC Resolution of 24 September 1991 in Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, docketed as G.R. No. 102467. [8] In our Decision [9] of 13 June 1997, we held respondent Sadac's dismissal illegal. We said that the existence of the employer-employee relationship between petitioner Bank and respondent Sadac had been duly established bringing the case within the coverage of the Labor Code, hence, we did not permit petitioner Bank to rely on Sec. 26, Rule 138 [10] of the Rules of Court, claiming that the association between the parties was one of a client-lawyer relationship, and, thus, it could terminate at any time the services of respondent Sadac. Moreover, we did not find that respondent Sadac's dismissal was grounded on any of the causes stated in Article 282 of the Labor Code. We similarly found that petitioner Bank disregarded the procedural requirements in terminating respondent Sadac's employment as so required by Section 2 and Section 5, Rule XIV, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. We decreed: WHEREFORE, the herein questioned Resolution of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: That private respondent shall be entitled to backwages from termination of employment until turning sixty (60) years of age (in 1995) and, thereupon, to retirement benefits in accordance with law; that private respondent shall be paid an additional amount of P5,000.00; that the award of moral and exemplary damages are deleted ; and that the liability herein pronounced shall be due from petitioner bank alone, the other petitioners being absolved from solidary liability. No costs. [11] On 28 July 1997,