Security Savings Bank v PDF

Preview

Summary

Sample Case...

Description

SOCIAL JUSTICE Security Bank Savings Corp. v. Charles Singson Gr. No. 214230, Feb 10, 2016,

Facts: Singson was hired in 1985 by Premiere Development Bank,( now Security Bank Savings Corp.) as messenger. He held various positions in the company until he was appointed as Ac ti ng Assi stant Branc h M an ager and then as C ustomer Service Operations Head (CSOH) tasked with the safe keeping of its checkbooks and other bank forms. On July 2008, Singson received a show-cause memorandum charging him with violation of the bank’s Code of Conduct when he mishandled various checkbooks under his custody. T h e SBSC’s Investigatio n C o m m i t t e e a l s o f o u n d 4 1 checkbooks were also missing. Singson readily admitted that he allowed Pinero (the QC branch manager), to bring out the check books from the bank’s premises and other bank forms since Pinero was a senior officer with lengthy tenure and good reputation. Pending investigation, he was reassigned to Pedro Gil branch and then after to Sampaloc, Manila branch. Out of dismay for the frequent transfers, he tendered his resignation but before the effectivity of his resignation the SBSC rejected the resignation and terminated him on the ground of habitual neglect of duties. Singson filed complaint for illegal dismissal and claims fo r back wages and attorney’s fees. Rulings from LA to CA found the dismissal valid but allowed as a measure of social justice the award of separation pay.

Issue: Is the award of separation pay, as a measure of social justice, valid despite the finding of a valid dismissal?

Ruling : In this case, NO, SC held that the award of separation pay is not warranted in this case. Separation pay is warranted when the cause of termination is not attributable to the employee’s fault such as those enumerated in ART 295 and 296 of the Labor Code. Singson is a custodian of accountable bank forms and as such w as m an d a t e d t o st r i c t l y c o mp l y w i t h t h e mo n i t o ri n g procedure and disposition thereof as a security measure to avoid high risk to the bank. Singon’s long years of service and clean employment record will not justify the award of separation pay since his violation (gross and habitual neglect of duty ) reflects a regrett abl e lac k of lo yal ty and w orse betrayal of the company. If an employee’s length of service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of d ismi ssal , suc h gesture wi ll ac tual ly become a prize fo r di sl oyal ty, di st orti ng the meani ng of So ci al Justi ce an d undermi ning the effo rt s of l abo r to cleanse

the rank s of undesirableness. The constitutional policy to provide full p rot ec ti o n to l abo r i s no t mean t to be an i n stru me nt t o oppress employers....