Philippine Commercial International Bank v.

Abad
Topic: Consequences of dismissal

FACTS:

Anastacio D. Abad was the Senior Assistant Manager of petitioner

Philippine Commercial International Bank when he was dismissed
from his work
Abad received a Memorandum from petitioner Bank concerning the
irregular clearing of PNB-Naval Check of Sixtu Chu, Abad submitted
his Answer categorically denying that he instructed his subordinates
to validate the out-of-town checks of Sixtu Chu
During the actual investigation conducted by petitioner Bank,
several transactions violative of the Banks Policies and Rules and
Regulations were uncovered by the Fact-Finding Committee
Consequently the Fact-Finding Officer of petitioner Bank issued
another Memorandum to Abad asking the latter to explain the newly
discovered irregularities
Not satisfied with the explanations of Abad, petitioner Bank served
another Memorandum terminating his employment effective
immediately upon receipt of the same
Abad then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with non-payment
of overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, and rest day, separation
pay, retirement benefits, damages and attorneys fees
The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal to be legal and directed
PCIB to indemnify Abad in the amount of Php 10, 000, Abad
appealed from this decision before the NLRC
The NLRC affirmed the decision and modified the award of
indemnity to Php 21,209, Abad elevated the case before the CA in a
petition for certiorari
The CA sustained the ruling that the dismissal was valid because
PCIB lost its trust and confidence in Abad, the CA awarded
separation pay equivalent to month pay for every year of service
in accordance with the social justice policy
Hence this petition

ISSUE:

Did the CA err in awarding Abad months pay for every year of
service?

HELD:

No. The CA did not err in awarding separation pay.

 The Court held that separation pay was correctly awarded despite
the lawful dismissal. Separation pay depends on the cause of
dismissal and the circumstances of the case.
The dismissal should not be due to serious misconduct or to causes
reflective of moral character. The dismissal in this case was due to
loss of trust and confidence and not serious misconduct
The dismissal was also not reflective of Abads moral character, as
he did not show any indication that hid actions were perpetrated for
his self-interest