G.R. Nos. 170542-43 - ANTONIO A. ABOC, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. [G.R. No. 176460] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, VS. ANTONIO A. ABOC.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, VIEWED FROM THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Antonio Aboc to have been illegally dismissed from the service by respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank). Consequently, same respondent Metrobank is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant Aboc to his former position or to a substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay said complainant the following, to wit: 1. Backwages February 12, 1998 to July 12, 1999 P11, 980.00 x 18 months ..............................P215, 640.00 13 th month = 1 yr ..................P11, 980.00 5 mons ........................ P 4, 991.66 P 16, 971.66 Service Incentive Leave (P11, 980.00 divided by 26 = P460.76 x 5 .................. 2,303.80 P19,275.46 P234, 915.46 2. 10% Attorney's Fees............................................ P 23, 491.54 GRAND TOTAL AWARD---------------------------------P258, 407.00 [9] The LA reasoned out that Metrobank failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the charges of serious misconduct, breach of trust and loss of confidence against Aboc. His lending activities were not foreign to Metrobank in the sense that credit unions commonly existed in its other branches and that said credit unions were handled by its high ranking employees. The LA added that Aboc's participation in the lending activities was due to "force of circumstance." He was an "unwilling participant" in the business of his superior because he could not just say "no" to Chua in view of the latter's moral ascendancy over him. In fact, Chua vouched for his non-participation in the lending business. According to the LA, to sanction the penalty of dismissal against Aboc would be unfair. [10] Moreover, the LA ruled that Metrobank did not comply with the due process requirement in dismissing Aboc because no hearing was conducted after he was required to explain. He was never informed that he was going to be investigated in connection with the charges being leveled against him. The conference set up by Metrobank could not be considered a substitute to the actual holding of a hearing. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission On December 11, 2002, the NLRC set aside the decision of the LA but ordered Metrobank to pay Aboc reinstatement wages from July 12, 1999 to September 16, 1999; salary increase from January 2000 to June 2001; Christmas bonus for the year 2000; 13 th month pay differential for the year 2000; and salary differential for July and August 2001. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby set aside and vacated and a new one entered dismissing the complaint. However, respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is hereby ordered to pay the following amounts with respect to complainant's reinstatement pending appeal: 1. Reinstatement Wages (July 12, 1999 to September 16, 1999 at P11, 980.00) P23, 960.00 2. Salary