G.R. No. 172812 - AMELIA R. ENRIQUEZ and REMO SIA, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and LUIS A. PUENTEVELLA, AVP.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. DECLARING that complainants were illegally dismissed by respondents; 2. ORDERING respondents to reinstate complainants to their former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay them their corresponding full back wages inclusive of allowances and other benefits as computed, in the sum of Pesos: ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR AND 50/100 ONLY (P1,173,434.50); 3. ORDERING respondents to jointly and severally pay complainants moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P3,000,000.00 each or a total of P6,000,000.00; 4. ORDERING respondents to jointly and severally pay attorneys fees in the amount of P717,343.45 which is equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award, thereby making a total of SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN AND 95/100 ONLY (P7,890,777.95) , the same to be deposited with the Cashier of this Office within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of this Decision; 5. ORDERING respondents to jointly and severally pay complainants in case they reach the compulsory retirement age of 60 years old pending final resolution of this case, their Retirement pay equivalent to two (2) months latest salary for every year of service and their Separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service computed from the time they were hired up to their retirement period. [11] Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the NLRC. Finding that the records substantiated the conclusion that petitioners tried to cover up teller Descartins infraction instead of taking the appropriate action thereon, the NLRC ruled that respondents had just cause to terminate their employment. Hence, the NLRC reversed and set aside the challenged decision and although it dismissed the complaint, it ordered respondents to give petitioners financial assistance equivalent to one-half months pay for every year of service. [12] Petitioners thereafter elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, agreeing with the NLRC, denied petitioners appeal and affirmed in toto the latters assailed decision. Before us, petitioners raise the following assignment of errors: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE NLRC WAS DEFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH RULE VI, SECTION 4 OF THE NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE APPEALED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS AND RENDERED IN DISREGARD OF THE EVIDENCE IN RECORD AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE VALIDLY TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE NLRCS DECISION AND RESOLUTION THAT ARE IRREGULAR AND ANOMALOUS. [13] The petition should be denied. Petitioners maintain that the Memorandum of Appeal [14] filed by respondents before the NLRC should have been dismissed due to a defect in its v