GR No, 194944: September 14, 2017 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Postion” TERESITA FE A GREGORIO, Respondent JARDALEZA J: ‘Gregori is @ Brencn Manager 2t PNB, wit & level cf Senior Manager, of PNB Sucat, Paranaque Brancn Sometime in December 2002, » depositor requested confirmation that PNB Sucet offers @ unique king of high-etum investment. as promised ty branch officers ana personnel. Thus, rom January 8 c0 24, 2003, PNB Internal Auait Group (IAG) concucted a crecit review ac PNB Sucet rageraingice activites ‘connectea with loan against epost ne Gregor, out transactions, A certsin Beni C. Repello (Rebelo also executec an affcauit detsling ner transactions witn \AG cuomitzad is eveluation, fineings, and recommendation ine Memorandum /AG Memorandum) which essentially dtaleo how Gregorio aushorizee ‘ne conauct of irregular trancactions in PNB Sucac From ft investigation and Rebollo’ affisvit ie IAG az coverae Gregorio’ purportea irreguler lenin actvties: Gregorio, along with Glora Mirends (Miranda). a customer relation scecilct of PNB Sucat,alegeely cominces decostorsto invest in a PNB product that he an abave-market interest incare yiak, To eval of With PNB Sucat. The lean proceads are theresfter loanee to other becrowers who uncerieak to pay 2 5% montnly inceres 's product, Gregorio required depositors to avail of aloan secured by their deposits (Gftne 5%, 2% il be paid to them as income interest yield while the remaining 2% wl go to PNB Sucst 2s commission. Parentheticaly, the IAG founc no ‘recarcis showing thet PNB Sucet received any commission arising from thane loen activities To faciitate the loans, Gregorio requires the depositors t2 ‘eccomalisn josn dacumerts such asthe Application/Aporoval Form on Loene against Decosit Holo-out Promissory Notes, ana Deposic Hole-out ‘Agreement The proceeds of the loans are tnen releases trrough manager's checks, These checks, in tum, are crecites to the savings accounts of persons other than the borrowers Later on two other depositors evecuted affidavits narrating tneir vancactions witn Gragorio. Spacifcaly, Maxims Vile (Viler) ang Virginia Polaro (Polara) executes aficavits on May 19, 2003 ang October 14, 2008, respecively, cepicung essentislly tre same transsction that Rebollo cated in her Fidavit in sum, these depositors claimed in the'r afidevts thet Gi ro convinced them to invest in @ PNB croguct that had o high int yistt They were required to sign withdrawal sins enc other loan clocumerts, Later on, they claimas & surprisecto les that they nave outstanding loans wirn the bank and that zneir aeposits ware subject of a holdout agreement. They were presentad with bank documents concerning tner loans ang holdout agreements, They insisted in ther affidavits thst they never agrees to contract loan with: upon inquiry with PNB Sucer, tay were e bark (On Mlay 30, 2003, che PNB Adrinistrative Adjucication Pane! (Panel) charged Gregorio with gross misconduct and dishonesty hesesion Villa's afidevt (On February 4, 2004, Gregorio was agsin charges with gross dishonesty anc/or wilful breacn of rust ang gross misconduct andlor negiigence. Gregorio filec sepsrete aniers to these charges on June 12.2003 and Februsry 16,2004 respecvely. In har anwar to the frst charge, Gragoria submitted Vilar's afievt of retraction which she recaived an June 11, 2003. According ta Villa's eficevit of retraction: (1) the ‘oan aginct epost noldou: rancecton was a matter between PNB Sucst’s ogpocitors ana tre respective corrowers:(2)shese loan "re ithe cepositars borrowers] private concern. Employees of the [eranch do not have too anything witn them (sic ano their business concerne’\22 @)\illar executes the esrleraficovt“out of [her] for reasons wricn fenel was (sic) not bie ta verily tne facsfrsc before executing tne effoavi 23 (4) Gregorio never induce Vilar co encer into any illegal ‘actvgy or to sig eny blank bank documents; (5] mre holgout of Vill’ eepasic was mace upon her insiructans.24 Netaby,Reboll also executed an afidavt of retraction of her earlier ofidavit. incere fear anc enxiery thet [she] may not be able to get [her] money from PNB Sucet with interest. ‘Gregorio alco statea tnat she never Borrowed monay from Pollera nor inauces ner to invest money in hign jterectyielaing ventures. Ratner, Pollra's (oan acthites were oetween ner ana her corrowere. Gregorio accertstnat Polars only complaines becauce ner borrower naa faled to pay ne. Nevertheless, whatever losses she may have incurred is her concem. Gregono, 9s well as te staf of PNB Sucat, has nathing to co with this PNB iesues @ memorencum ciemiscing Gragori from service base on the Pane's recommengation. This prompted Gregorio wo file wefore tne NLRC an. ‘acton for itegal cemiscal oamages ano amorney' fees, wit prayer forreinstatemens wi full acaveges against PNB. The LA foun tnat Gregorio wee legally dismesea, rooting his fineing on the insufficengy of PNBs bases in cisrising Gregorio, PNB eppeales ro rie NLRC which reverses tne LA's Decision. The NLRC rela tnat PNB met ihe requires burden of proof. Accoraingto the NLRC, PNB. cea the affcavcs of Rebolio, Vilar, ana Pollsra ac well ac the result of me IAG’ invectgstion as bases for it rang. tegraea wien PNB that Rebollo ang Vill effidovies of retraction did not necessoniy make thei earlier statements false as recartations are generally locked upon with cisfavor as they can bbe easly fazricates, ft added that the LA errad in holing that Gregorio should have been gven the apparturity to con‘rort Pollard “Gregorio filed an epaeal before the CA wich cet asice NLRC’ decision ane rainctated LA‘s Geczion. The CA found no facta orlogalcasisfor ene charges of gross misconduct and wilful breach oftrust and confidence. It found all the questioned bank transactions tobe well Cocumented end the Joan egninet holdout agreements to be regular transactions of PNB Sucat The CA acted that while Viller enc Pollard legitimately avalled af this laen arrangement, thay suffereo losses because their borrowers failed to pay the promisea interest. For me CA, tic was neither Gregorio’ fautt nor witnin nar contro. tsa highighted that PNB based ics cecsion o terminate Gregprio on the three afidavts, ro of which were recanted by Vilar anc Rela, As ‘to Pollarc'saficent which was never recantes, the CA founc that (1) PNB never gave Gregorio the opportunity to confront Pollard anc (2) Pollar’s cllegmions were unsubstantiated. Asics from stressing thet there was alsa no evidence: fact nat Gregorio nas consistently received nign performance ratings NB incurred lasses or demages because of Gregors’s activites, the CA aso founc relevant \Wetner or not CA erree in finging that ic accea solely on che bacis oftne crvee (3) ffiaevits. HELD: C's cecisions et asice LABOR LAM termination of employment lege e'smissal, urcen of proof ‘The proceedings in question her re those that transpires atthe level of the NLRC. Wnen a complaint for llega dismissal is flea, the comolsinars has ‘the Guty to prove that he or she wes cismissed end that this cisissal not legal because there is no vali couse or no compliance with cue process orally its incumbent upon tne responcant to prove thatthe aismissal was legal by actablishing the vale cause ana camaliance wien cue aracess In 1 caze cucn as the one before us, were the question precentea ic wnetner tnere was a grou te oismiss Gregorio for eluctceuse, the curcen of PNB ic ‘to prove nat t nag, infact sufficient basis to find Gregorio gulty of gross aisnonesty, gross misconduct and wilful brescn of trust or cuty. This entails the presentation of evidence showing that Gregorio insead parformas the acts imputed against her REMEDIAL LAW! evioance; revactons \We concur with the NLRCs apprecition ofthe affcavit of retraction We have often repeated that “[Just becouse one has executedian aficavit of ‘retraction does not imply that whet hes been previously said fake or hat the asters rue" The reletlty ofen afficaut of retraction i decermined in ‘the seme manner thar ne reliability of any cener oocumertary evidence is accertainge. In particular, ts necessary to examine tne crcurnetances surroundingit. nthe case of Vilars affdavie of retraction, we note that this has never been icentfied and authenticates. Thus, ts weight as evidence is bignl suspect. to Retollo’s alleged afisevit of retraction, «reading ofits conterts, as correctly painted out by the NLRC, reveels that Rebollo in fact mes Gregori’: particioation in the lencing activities witnin PNB Sucet when sne said in thi affdavic that Gregori intoouces her to a certain Realina Ty who became ner borroner. Petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.