View full case

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. IAC

FACTS:

In this case, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a petition for review questioning the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in a case entitled "Bernardo Rebano vs. PNB, et al." The private respondent, Bernardo Rebano, was a senior bookkeeper at the PNB Buendia Branch. He was charged with serious violations of Bank Rules & Regulations, including allowing withdrawals against uncollected deposits and posting withdrawals without approval of authorized branch officials. Rebano's culpability stemmed from the discovery of check-kiting operations at the PNB Buendia Branch, which resulted in substantial withdrawals against uncollected deposits. The PNB Board of Directors issued a resolution dismissing Rebano from service with forfeiture of benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement. Rebano appealed to the Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission, which affirmed the decision but reduced the penalty from dismissal to a six-month suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals upheld Rebano's guilt but ordered his reinstatement and reduced the penalty to a six-month suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals criticized the disparity in penalties imposed on Rebano and others involved in the kiting anomaly. The PNB filed a petition for review, arguing that Rebano's dismissal from service was the proper penalty. The Supreme Court agreed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the Civil Service Commission's decision ordering Rebano's dismissal from service.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is the correct and proper penalty for private respondent's gross misconduct.

  2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of good faith and disparity in penalties justify the reduction of the penalty from dismissal to suspension.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the penalty of dismissal from service is the correct and proper penalty for private respondent's gross misconduct. The Court found that private respondent facilitated the encashment of ninety-two (92) checks drawn against uncollected deposits without authorization, which is a serious violation of bank rules. Private respondent's act of posting the checks without authorization rendered them as good, sufficiently funded, and with genuine signatures, allowing them to be encashed by the teller. Given the severity of private respondent's actions, his dismissal from the service is warranted.

  2. No, the mitigating circumstances of good faith and disparity in penalties do not justify the reduction of the penalty from dismissal to suspension. The Court held that private respondent's repeated violations of the bank rules (92 times) remove any claim of good faith. As for the disparity in penalties, the Court noted that while it may be questionable that other persons involved were not as severely punished, it is beyond the Court's reach. Private respondent's repeated violations alone merit dismissal from the service.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Neglect of duty or violation of reasonable office regulations may be grounds for removal from the service. (Sec. 695, Revised Administrative Code of 1917)

  • Mitigating circumstances in the imposition of penalties may include physical illness, good faith, length of service in the government, and analogous circumstances. (Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 1970, Civil Service Commission)

  • Gross misconduct in office may be punished by dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits. (Policarpio vs. Fajardo)

  • Dismissal from the service is warranted when an employee is found guilty of serious misconduct in office. (Abdulwahid vs. Reyes)