GENUINO VS.

NLRC
Facts:
Genuino was employed by Citibank in January 1992 as
Treasury Sales Division ead wit! t!e rank o" #ssistant $ice%
&resident' (n #u)ust 2*+ 199*+ Citibank sent Genuino a letter
c!ar)in) !er wit! ,knowled)e and involvement- in transactions
,w!ic! were irre)ular or event "raudulent'- .n t!e same letter+
Genuino was in"ormed s!e was under preventive suspension'
(n September 2/+ 199*+ Citibank in"ormed Genuino o" t!e
result o" t!eir investi)ation' .t "ound t!at Genuino+ to)et!er wit!
Santos personally and actively participated t!rou)! t!e use o"
,"acilities o" Genuino0s "amily corporation+ Global &aci"ic- in t!e
diversion o" bank client0s "unds to products o" ot!er companies
t!at yielded !i)!er interests t!an Citibank o""ers' #nd t!at
Genuino and Santos reali1ed substantial "inancial )ains+ all in
violation o" e2istin) company policy and Corporation Code
under w!ic! carries penal sanction' .n view o" t!e "ore)oin)
circumstances+ Genuino0s employment was terminated by
Citibank on )rounds o" 314 serious misconduct+ 324 wil"ul breac!
o" t!e trust reposed upon !er by t!e bank+ and 3*4 commission
o" a crime a)ainst t!e bank'
Genuino "iled be"ore t!e 5abor #rbiter a Complaint
a)ainst Citibank "or ille)al suspension and ille)al dismissal wit!
dama)es and prayer "or temporary restrainin) order and6or writ
o" preliminary in7unction' T!e 5abor #rbiter rendered a Decision
"indin) t!e dismissal o" Genuino to be wit!out 7ust cause' T!e
859C reversed t!e decision o" t!e 5abor #rbiter' T!e Court o"
#ppeals t!en promul)ated its decision denyin) due course to
and dismissin) t!e petitions'
.ssue: :!et!er or not t!e dismissal o" Genuino is "or a 7ust
cause and in accordance wit! due process'
eld: T!e dismissal was "or a 7ust cause but lacked due
process'
T!e re;uirements o" twin notices must be met' T!e two%notice
re;uirement o" t!e 5abor Code is an essential part o" t!e due
process' T!e "irst notice in"ormin) t!e employee o" t!e c!ar)es
s!ould neit!er be pro%"orma nor va)ue' .t s!ould set out clearly
w!at t!e employee is bein) !eld liable "or' T!e employee s!ould
be a""orded ample opportunity to be !eard and not mere
opportunity' #mple opportunity to be !eard is especially
accorded t!e employees sou)!t to be dismissed a"ter t!ey are
speci"ically in"ormed o" t!e c!ar)es in order to )ive t!em an
opportunity to re"ute suc! accusations leveled a)ainst t!em'
Since t!e notice o" c!ar)es )iven to Genuino is inade;uate+ t!e
dismissal could not be in accordance wit! due process' :!ile
t!e Court !eld t!at Citibank "ailed to observe procedural due
process+ it never t!e less "ound Genuino0s dismissal 7usti"ied'
:!ile t!e bank )ave )enuine an opportunity to deny t!e trut! o"
t!e alle)ations in writin) and participate in t!e administrative
investi)ation+ t!e "act remains t!at t!e c!ar)es were too
)eneral to enable Genuino to intelli)ently and ade;uately
prepare !er de"ense'
#rticle 2<23c4 o" t!e 5abor Code provides t!at an employer may
terminate an employment "or "raud or will"ul breac! o" t!e trust
reposed in !im6!er employer or duly aut!ori1ed representative'
.n order to constitute as 7ust cause "or dismissal+ loss o"
con"idence s!ould relate to acts inimical to interests o" t!e
employer' #lso+ t!e act complained o" s!ould !ave arisen "rom
t!e per"ormance o" t!e employee0s duties' For loss o" trust and
con"idence to be a valid )round "or an employee0s dismissal+ it
must be substantial and not arbitrary+ and must be "ounded on
clearly establis!ed "acts su""icient to warrant t!e employee0s
separation "rom work' #s #ssistant $ice%&resident o" Citibank0s
Treasury Department+ Genuino was tasked to solicit
investments+ and peso and dollar deposits "or+ and keep t!em in
Citibank= and to sell and pus! "or t!e sale o" Citibank0s "inancial
products+ suc! as >?S+ "or t!e account and bene"it o" Citibank'
S!e !eld t!e position o" trust and con"idence' T!ere is no way
s!e could deny any knowled)e o" t!e ?ank0s policies nor !er
understandin) o" t!ese policies as re"lected in t!e survey done
by t!e bank' S!e could not likewise "ei)n i)norance o" t!e
businesses o" Citibank+ and o" Global and Torrance' #ssumin)
t!at Citibank did not en)a)e in t!e same securities dealt wit! by
Global and Torrance= nevert!eless+ it is to t!e interests o"
Citibank to retain its clients and continue investin) in Citibank'
Curiously+ Genuino did not 7ust dissuade t!e depositors "rom
wit!drawin) t!eir money "rom Citibank but was even
instrumental in t!e trans"ers o" moneys "rom Citibank to a
competin) bank t!rou)! Global and Torrance+ t!e corporations
bein) controlled by !er'
(rdinarily+ t!e employer is re;uired to reinstate t!e employee
durin) t!e pendency o" t!e appeal pursuant to #rt'22*+ par' * o"
t!e 5abor Code' ." t!e decision o" t!e 5abor #rbiter is later
reversed on appeal upon t!e "indin) t!at t!e )round "or
dismissal is valid t!en t!e employer !as t!e ri)!t to re;uire t!e
dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to re"und t!e
salaries received w!ile t!e case was pendin) appeal+ or it can
be deducted "rom t!e accrued bene"its t!at t!e dismissed
employee was entitled to receive "rom !is employer under
e2istin) laws+ collective bar)ainin) a)reement provisions+ and
company practices' owever+ i" t!e employee was reinstated to
work durin) t!e pendency o" t!e appeal+ t!en t!e employee is
entitled to t!e compensation received "or actual services
rendered wit!out t!e need o" re"und'
Considerin) t!at Genuino was not reinstated to work or placed
on payroll reinstatement+ and !er dismissal is based on a 7ust
cause+ t!en s!e is not entitled to be paid t!e salaries stated in
item no' * o" t!e "allo o" t!e September *+ 199@ 859C decision'