Scribd
Upload
378 views2 pages

Title: Genuino V NLRC GR No.:142732-33

This case involves the dismissal of Marilou S. Genuino from her position at Citibank. While the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be without just cause, the NLRC reversed and found there was just cause but without due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision and awarded nominal damages of P5,000 for lack of due process. The Supreme Court then increased the nominal damages to P30,000, finding Genuino was dismissed for just cause due to her involvement in diverting client funds for personal gain, but that Citibank failed to properly notify her of the charges in violation of her right to due process.

Uploaded by

Rochelle Joy Solis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
378 views2 pages

Title: Genuino V NLRC GR No.:142732-33

This case involves the dismissal of Marilou S. Genuino from her position at Citibank. While the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be without just cause, the NLRC reversed and found there was just cause but without due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision and awarded nominal damages of P5,000 for lack of due process. The Supreme Court then increased the nominal damages to P30,000, finding Genuino was dismissed for just cause due to her involvement in diverting client funds for personal gain, but that Citibank failed to properly notify her of the charges in violation of her right to due process.

Uploaded by

Rochelle Joy Solis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GR No.

:142732-33
Title: Genuino v NLRC

Date: December 4, 2007


Ponente: Velasco, Jr, J

DOCTRINE: If the decision of the labor arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the finding that
the ground for dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to require the dismissed
employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries s/he received while the case was pending
appeal, or it can be deducted from the accrued benefits that the dismissed employee was entitled
to receive from his/her employer under existing laws, collective bargaining agreement
provisions, and company practices.42 However, if the employee was reinstated to work during
the pendency of the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the compensation received for actual
services rendered without need of refund.

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/S

Whether the dismissal is for a just cause and with the observance of due process.

MKMA
RULING

Genuino was dismissed for just cause but without the observance of due process. The 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.

MISC DETAILS

MKMA

You might also like