Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82656:56493&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:02:52+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 203186, December 04, 2013 - XAVIER C. RAMOS, Petitioner, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK AND/OR ALFONSO L. SALCEDO, JR., Respondents.
XAVIER C. RAMOS, Petitioner, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK AND/OR ALFONSO L. SALCEDO, JR., Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated November 12, 2010 and Resolution3 dated August 6, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 104161 which modified the Decision4 dated March 31, 2008 and Resolution5 dated May 30, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR 00–09–07510–06 finding petitioner Xavier C. Ramos (Ramos) concurrently negligent with respondent BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BPI Family) and thus ordering the equitable reduction of his retirement benefits from P546,000.00 to P200,000.00.
Claiming that the deductions made by BPI Family were illegal, Ramos filed a complaint for underpayment of retirement benefits and non–payment of overtime and holiday pay and premium pay against BPI Family and/or its President at that time, Alfonso L. Salcedo, Jr., before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC,18 docketed as NLRC NCR 00–09–07510–06.
Ramos moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a Resolution39 dated August 6, 2012. Hence, this petition.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it found the deduction made from Ramos’s retirement benefits to be illegal and unreasonable.
First, as correctly observed by the NLRC, BPI Family was not able to substantially prove its imputation of negligence against Ramos. Well–settled is the rule that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.45 In this case, BPI Family failed to establish that the duty to confirm and validate information in credit applications and determine credit worthiness of prospective loan applicants rests with the Dealer Network Marketing Department, which is the department under the supervision of Ramos. Quite the contrary, records show that these responsibilities lie with the bank’s Credit Services Department, namely its Credit Evaluation Section and Loans Review and Documentation Section,46 of which Ramos was not part of.
In a separate audit report (herein appended as Annex “E”), it was noted that marketing officers regularly issue or release purchase orders and authorities to deliver to car dealers (in case of dealer generated auto loan wherein a loan originates from the automobile dealer who submits the financing transactions, down payment and mortgage fee by the debtor–car purchaser to the bank) before the approval of the documents. The report further noted that the practice has been adopted due in part to the stiff competition with other banks and lending institutions. Resultantly, in 2005 alone, approximately 111 car loan applications were released ahead of the approval of the credit evaluation section.
Based on the foregoing, it is readily apparent that Ramos’s action of issuing the PO and ATD ahead of the approval of the credit committee was actually conformant to regular company practice which BPI Family itself sanctioned. As such, Ramos cannot be said to have been negligent in his duties. To this end, it is well to note that in loan transactions, banks are mandated to ensure that their clients wholly comply with all the documentary requirements in relation to the approval and release of loan applications.48 As BPI Family “uncharacteristically relaxed supervision over its divisions,” yielding as it did to the demands of industry competition, it is but reasonable that it solely bears the loss of its own shortcomings.
All told, absent any showing that the NLRC’s decision was tainted with capriciousness or any semblance of whimsicality, the Court is wont to grant the present petition and accordingly reverse the CA decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 12, 2010 and Resolution dated August 6, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 104161 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The National Labor Relations Commission’s Decision dated March 31, 2008 and Resolution dated May 30, 2008 in NLRC NCR 00–09–07510–06 are hereby REINSTATED.
2 Id. at 52–65. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
4 Id. at 119–135. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, with Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.
10 “Terezita” in some parts of the records.
19 Id. at 103–118. Penned by Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog.
c. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
31 Id. at 57 & 64.
40 See Global Business Holdings, Inc. v. Surecomp Software, B.V., G.R. No. 173463, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 95, 102.
41Balois v. CA, G.R. No. 182130 & 182132, June 19, 2013.
42 G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010, 618 SCRA 218.
43 G.R. No. 168654, March 25, 2009, 582 SCRA 417.
44Mercado v. AMA Computer College–Parañaque City, Inc., supra note 42, at 232.
45National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries–Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. NLRC, G.R. No. 179402, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 291, 305.
48Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Tentmakers Group, Inc., G.R. No. 171050, July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 546.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.