"1. After a reconciliation of the cash account, cash in the custody of the Cashier exceeded her accountability per books by P7,730.65.

2. At the time of the examination, recording in the books of account was behind by about a week as the last posting was August 31, 1989. The daily proofsheets covering the period from September 1 to 8, 1989 were prepared and up-dated during the examination to determine the exact accountability of the Cashier.

3. It should be pointed out at this juncture that a week’s delay in the recording of transactions in the books of account and a shortage or overage in cash accountability regardless of amount constituted negligence on the part of the employees concerned."1 [Rollo, p. 54.]

"In the case of Mr. Rutaquio: the Bank was fined by the Central Bank in an amount of approximately P35,000.00 for late financial reports; books of account of the bank remain unbalanced, and lately, even after being aware that the new management intends to dismiss him, entries in the books of account were late.

In the case of Mrs. Villareal: she could not account for a P10,000.00 check and the fact that she paid them the sum when the new management took over is no mitigation. In the cash count made last month, there was an average of over P7,000.00.

When a small bank with a paid-up capital of only P500,000.00 has only one bookkeeper and only one cashier with such unreliability, the viability thereof is in imminent danger. Moreover, you have always been acting in an insolent manner towards the new management which is anathema to the smooth operation of the bank.

You are dismissed from the Bank as of the of last month."4 [Rollo, p. 56.]

"As to the statement of Capital Required and Capital Accounts-CBP Form -7-19-07 from June to December 1987 mentioned by the Central Bank, in its letter of July 25, 1987, it is worth mentioning that the Rural Bank of Baler, Inc., had never prepared and submitted the same until a form was furnished by the Central Bank, thru (sic) Director Jesse Domingo in 1988, hence the incumbent bookkeeper could not be held liable for failure to prepare and submit said statement of Capital Required and Capital Accounts, for there is no available record in the Bank to show that said report had been prepared and submitted before I (Jose H. Rutaquio) assumed office as General Bookkeeper in May 1987.

With respect to the Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) check, which was lost, the incident happened during that time when there was panic withdrawal from the depositors. And after discovering that the check was in fact lost, all necessary actions were made to safeguard the interest of the Bank. But after sometime the amount was charged to my (Erlinda F. Villareal) account. The full amount, however, was recovered after Mr. Alberto Ong issued Solidbank Check No. CA 496704, dated February 14, 1989 in favor of the Rural Bank of Baler, Inc. Jksm

As to the overage amounting to Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Pesos and 65/100 (P7,730.65) during the Cash Audit made by Mr. Bartolome I. Conde in the presence of Ms. Flordeliza S. Carpio, President/Manager of the Bank on September 8, 1989, at about 2:30 P.M. without any written authority from the Central Bank to audit the Rural Bank of Baler, Inc., the cash audit was undertaken even if the bank transaction was still going on. Hence, the overage of Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Pesos and 65/100 (P7,730.65) has been recorded, which may be explained as follows:

a) Under Savings Deposit Number 3760, the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) for deposit was received, however the said deposit was accounted the following banking day dated September 11, 1989 and therefore the cash on hand exceeded the recorded cash on hand.

b) On the same day, Savings Deposit Number 2181, withdrew the amount of Two Hundred Seventy Pesos (P270.00). The said withdrawal had been paid-up but accounted and recorded on September 15, 1989.

Finally, Section 5 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code on termination of employment, requires the employer to give the worker ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his counsel or representative. JuriÓ smis

In view of all the foregoing, we respectfully request for a hearing and be given the opportunity to prove that the Bank has no just cause to dismiss us and granting arguendo that the Bank believes there is any, the dismissal should be made only after due process, is afforded us, as provided under Section 1, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code on termination of employment."5 [Rollo, pp. 58-59.]

"Wherefore, premises considered it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Commission, that after hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the complainant against respondent, declaring illegal and unlawful the dismissal of herein complainant by respondent, granting and awarding to said complainant, the following:

a) His salary from October 1, 1989 until the case is finally terminated;

b) His monthly allowance from October 1, 1989 until the case is finally terminated;

c) The money value of his earned leave; LexjÓ uris

d) His separation pay;

e) Payment for damages in the amount of P100,000.00

f) Attorney’s fee in the amount of P30,000.00; and

g) Other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises."6 [Jose H. Rutaquio’s Position Paper, p. 1,3, Rollo, pp. 48,50.]

"xxx he was threatened by Manuel Suaverdez and Gregorio Suaverdez on or about 072030 January 89 during a conference held at Rural Bank of Baler Incorporated at Recto Street this municipality. This incident happened after said Jose Rutaquio has explained in the said conference the present financial statement of the said Rural Bank. Likewise Gregorio Suaverdez uttered defamatory words and expressions against Jose Rutaquio, to wit: "PUTANG-INA MO. PARA KANG MAY-ARI NG BANGKO KUNG MAGSALITA". Gregorio Suaverdez asked Danilo Natividad to get his gun from his wife (Vilma Suaverdez), and he also said "KUNG GUSTO MO TAPUSIN KA NA NAMIN". More so, Manuel Suaverdez and Gregorio Suaverdez also uttered the following: "PAG PINATAY KA NAMIN, ANG WITNESS MO LAMANG AY SI EX-MAYOR PIMENTEL" xxx7 [Annex "A", Petition, Rollo, p. 52.]

"The respondents are engaged in banking business. Confidence and trust are the principal consideration in the selection and hiring of employees. In the same manner, loss of confidence and breach of trust should also be the principal consideration in the removal or dismissal of the employees.

Respondents have enumerated the irregularities, incompetence, disobedience, negligence, misbehavior and misconduct of complainant. All these facts are inimical to the employer’s interest. In consonance with the ruling of the Supreme Court in San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 142, (sic) SCRA 376, an employer has the right to dismiss an employee whose continuance in office is inimical to the employer’s interests.

The respondents have lost confidence in complainant when he continuously neglected his duties on account of which the respondent bank was penalized twice in the total amount of P32,890.00. The right of the employer to dismiss the bookkeeper based on loss of confidence due to incompetence, serious irregularities grave misconduct cannot be precluded. Such is the ruling of the Supreme Court in Metro Drug Corp. vs. NLRC, 143 SCRA 132.

xxx It was only after his refusal to take advantage of the magnanimity of the bank that he was finally considered resigned at the end of business hour on September 29, 1989. xxx"8 [Respondent’s Revised Position Paper, pp. 1, 5, Rollo, pp. 69,73.] Es-mso

"In the light of the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, it is crystal clear that the dismissals of the complainants are illegal, hence they must be reinstated to their former positions, considering however, the strained relationship which culminated between the parties, it is believed more appropriate under the premises not to reinstate complainants to prevent further the already acrimonious relationship between the contending parties. Payment therefore of a separation pay (one-half month pay for every year of service) is in order in the interest of justice with damages for their social humiliation, sleepless nights, mental anguish occasioned by their unwarranted dismissals which has dawned upon them without the benefit of due process.

Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissals of the complainants as illegal and therefore respondents are hereby ordered: Ms-esm

1. To pay complainant Erlinda F. Villareal backwages from the date when she was illegally dismissed on September 30, 1989 up to July 1, 1990 the date of the rendition of this decision, in the amount of P25,012.80, the amount of P28,139.40 as separation pay and the amount of P15,000.00 as moral damages;

2. To pay complainant Jose H. Rutaquio his backwages from the time he was illegally dismissed on September 30, 1989 to July 1, 1990 the amount of P23,968.80, the amount of P9,321.20 as separation pay and the amount of P15,000.00 as moral damages;

3. To pay complainant’s counsel ten percent (10%) of the total award as Attorney’s fees."9 [Decision, pp. 1, 12-13, Rollo, pp. 32, 43-44.]

"Although the case of City Service Corp. Workers Union vs. City Service Corp., 135 SCRA 565, the Supreme Court held that an employee unjustly dismissed shall be entitled under the Labor Code to reinstatement and backwages from the time his compensation was withheld to the time of his reinstatement. Such fact is not obtainable in this case considering that the Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay to the complainants in lieu of reinstatement. However, to obviate protracted litigations that may arise in the computation of complainant’s backwages, We deemed it proper to fix the award of backwages to one (1) year without qualification and deduction.

Likewise, We delete the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees for lack of factual and legal basis. In the case of Gutierrez vs. Villegas, 8 SCRA 527, the Supreme Court held that no award for moral damages can be made where the record shows no proof of mental anguish. The other issues and arguments raised by the complainants in their appeal are dismissed for want of merit.

Anent the appeal of the respondents, records show that the questioned decision was received by the respondents, thru (sic) counsel on July 24, 1990 and the appeal was filed on October 30, 1990 which is way beyond the ten (10) calendar days reglementary period for the filing of appeals as required by the Revised NLRC Rules. Well rooted is the principle that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory that deprives the appellate or body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less entertain the appeal (Acda vs. Minister of Labor, 306-307, (sic) SCRA 119, Dec. 15, 1982). Likewise, the records indicate that no appeal fee was paid by the respondents. It has been held that the non-payment of appeal fee is an essential requirement in the perfection of an appeal. Appellant must conform to the requisites of law (Art. 221) considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but merely statutory right (Acda vs. MOLE, 119 SCRA, 507). For these reasons, We dismiss respondents’ appeal. Ky-le

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby modified to delete the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainants Jose F. Rutaquio and Erlinda F. Villareal their backwages fixed at one (1) year without qualification and deduction. All other dispositions stand.10 [Decision, pp. 6-8, Rollo, pp. 28-30.]

"PUBLIC RESPONDENTS ERRED IN FIXING THE BACKWAGES OF HEREIN PETITIONERS AT ONLY ONE YEAR WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.

PUBLIC RESPONDENTS ERRED IN AWARDING TO HEREIN PETITIONERS SEPARATION PAY EQUIVALENT TO ONLY ONE-HALF (1/2) MONTH FOR EVERY YEAR OF SERVICE. S-l-x

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR "LACK OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS."11 [Petition, p. 9, Rollo, p. 10.]

"xxx conformably with the evident legislative intent as expressed in Rep. Act No. 6715, above-quoted, backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee, should not, as a general rule, be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. The underlying reason for this ruling is that the employee, while litigating the legality (illegality) of his dismissal, must still earn a living to support himself and his family, while full backwages have to be paid by the employer as part of the price or penalty he has to pay for illegally dismissing his employee. The clear legislative intent of the amendment in Rep. Act No. 6715 is to give more benefits to workers than was previously given them under the Mercury Drug Rule or the deduction of earnings elsewhere rule. Thus, a closer adherence to the legislative policy behind Rep. Act No. 6715 points to full backwages as meaning exactly that, i.e., without deducting from backwages the earnings derived elsewhere by the concerned employee during the period of his illegal dismissal. In other words, the provision calling for full backwages to illegally dismissed employees is clear, pain and free from ambiguity and, therefore, must be applied without attempted or strained interpretation. Index animi sermo est." Ky-calr

"Moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy." (Lopez v. Javier, 252 SCRA 68) Calr-ky

"It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney’s fees is legally and morally justifiable." Sc-slx