Genuino vs NLRC

G.R. Nos. 142732-33; December 4, 2007

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Facts:
Genuino was employed by Citibank sometime in January 1992 as
Treasury Sales Division Head with the rank of Assistant Vice-
President. She received a monthly compensation of PhP 60,487.96,
exclusive of benefits and privileges. On August 23, 1993, Citibank
sent Genuino a letter charging her with “knowledge and/or
involvement” in transactions “which were irregular or even
fraudulent.” In the same letter, Genuino was informed she was under
preventive suspension. Genuino’s counsel replied through a letter
dated September 17, 1993, demanding for a bill of particulars
regarding the charges against Genuino.
On September 27, 1993, Citibank informed Genuino of the result of
their investigation. It found that Genuino with Santos used “facilities of
Genuino’s family corporation, namely, Global Pacific, personally and
actively participated in the diversion of bank clients’ funds to products
of other companies that yielded interests higher than what Citibank
products offered, and that Genuino and Santos realized substantial
financial gains, all in violation of existing company policy and the
Corporation Code, which for your information, carries a penal
sanction.”
Genuino’s employment was terminated by Citibank on grounds of (1)
serious misconduct, (2) willful breach of the trust reposed upon her by
the bank, and (3) commission of a crime against the bank
Labor Arbiter - the dismissal of the complainant Marilou S. Genuino to
be without just cause and in violation of her right to due process,
NLRC- reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision CA- with just cause but
w/o due process P5,000.00 nominal charges

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal is for a just cause and with the
observance of due process.
Held:
Genuino was dismissed for just cause but without the observance of
due process. The Labor Arbiter found that Citibank failed to
adequately notify Genuino of the charges against her. On the
contrary, the NLRC held that “the function of a ‘notice to explain’ is
only to state the basic facts of the employer’s charges
In Agabon, we explained:
The violation of the petitioners’ right to statutory due process by the
private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of
nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant
circumstances. Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case
at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form
of damages would serve to deter employers from future violations of
the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it
provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted
to the latter under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. Thus,
the award of PhP 5,000 to Genuino as indemnity for non-observance
of due process under the CA’s March 31, 2000Resolution in CA-G.R.
SP No. 51532 is increased to PhP 30,000.