Genuino vs NLRC

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 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. he 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.