22.

Ang vs PNB
G.R. No. 178762
June 16, 2010
LUZVIMINDA A. ANG, Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
Facts:
This case is about the dismissal of an employee for offenses committed during her
employment in a government-owned corporation but which offenses were discovered
after the privatized corporation rehired her to work for it. Peitioner Ang claimed that
respondent PNB, then a government-owned corporation, hired her as a probationary
clerk. But she rose from the ranks, eventually becoming an Assistant Department
Manager, a position she held when the PNB was privatized and when she, like her coemployees, was deemed automatically retired. PNB administratively charged her with
serious misconduct and willful breach of trust for taking part in a scam, called "kiting
operation," where a depositor used a conduit bank account for depositing several
unfunded checks drawn against the same depositors other current accounts and from
which conduit bank account he later withdrew those checks. PNB heaped other charges
against Ang of serious misconduct and gross violation of the banks rules and regulations
wherein she issued six certificates of deposit in amounts exceeding the true deposit
balance of various depositors, issued two bank commitments for providing a credit line in
favor of a government contractor without authority, committed tardiness and "under
time. In the answer to the charge Ang claimed that it was not a "kiting operation," but an
accommodation of a very valued client and the issuance of the certificates had been a
marketing strategy and prevent their valued clients to move to other banks. Ang also
claimed that she was not covered by the circular governing office hours because she was
a bank officer. Managerial employees, according to her, worked beyond the usual eight
hours and even worked on Saturdays and Sundays. She added that, since the bank had
already made deductions for tardiness on her pay check, she cannot anymore be
administratively charged for it. Ang further pointed out that the causes for her termination
took place when she was yet a government official. The PNB had since ceased to be
government-owned. If she were to be charged for those causes, the jurisdiction over her
case would lie with the Civil Service Commission. Even then, since she already retired
from the government service, the employment that could be terminated no longer existed.
Ang filed complaint against illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, non-payment of 13th
month pay, allowances, separation pay, and retirement benefits with prayer for payment
of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses. The Labor
Arbiter found PNBs dismissal of Ang illegal for failure to show that the dismissal was
for a valid cause and after notice and hearing. Specifically, the PNB failed to prove any
basis for loss of trust. The NLRC deleted the award of damages because of absence of
bad faith on the part of the PNB officers but maintained the LAs finding that the PNB
had not proved loss of trust as a ground for dismissal. The Court of Appeals found a valid
reason to uphold Angs dismissal from the service for willful breach of the trust reposed
in her by the PNB.

Issue: Whether or not there was willful breach of trust and confidence.
Held:
Yes. Ang claims that her dismissal by PNB, the private corporation, was illegal
since she had committed no offense under its employ. The offense for which she was
removed took place when the government still owned PNB and she was then a
government employee. But while PNB began as a government corporation, it did not
mean that its corporate being ceased and was subsequently reestablished when it was
privatized. It remained the same corporate entity before, during, and after the change over
with no break in its life as a corporation.
Consequently, the offenses that Ang committed against the bank before its privatization
continued to be offenses against the bank after the privatization. But, since the PNB was
already a private corporation when it looked into Angs offenses, the provisions of the
Labor Code governed its disciplinary action. The PNB rightfully separated her from work
for willful breach of the trust that it reposed in her under the Labor Code. Her defense
that the PNB did not suffer any loss is of no moment. The focal point is that she betrayed
the trust of the bank in her fidelity to its interest and rules.