480 Phil. 803
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
In the meantime, we are more concerned with your denying Mr. Basco “access to all bank premises.” As you may know, he is currently connected with Cocolife as insurance agent. Given his 17-year tenure with your bank, he has established good relationships with many UCPB employees, who comprise the main source of his solicitations. In the course of his work as insurance agent, he needs free access to your bank premises, within reason, to add the unnecessary. Your memorandum has effectively curtailed his livelihood and he is once again becoming a victim of another “illegal termination,” so to speak. And Shakespeare said: “You take his life when you do take the means whereby he lives.”In his reply dated December 12, 1995, Ongsiapco informed the respondent that his request could not be granted:
Mr. Basco’s work as an insurance agent directly benefits UCPB, Cocolife’s mother company. He performs his work in your premises peacefully without causing any disruption of bank operations. To deny him access to your premises for no reason except the pendency of the labor case, the outcome of which is still in doubt – his liability, if any, certainly has not been proven – is a clear abuse of right in violation of our client’s rights. Denying him access to the bank, which is of a quasi-public nature, is an undue restriction on his freedom of movement and right to make a livelihood, comprising gross violations of his basic human rights. (This is Human Rights Week, ironically).
We understand that Mr. Basco has been a stockholder of record of 804 common shares of the capital stock of UCPB since July 1983. As such, he certainly deserves better treatment than the one he has been receiving from your office regarding property he partly owns. He is a particle of corporate sovereignty. We doubt that you can impose the functional equivalent of the penalty of destierro on our client who really wishes only to keep his small place in the sun, to survive and breathe. No activity can be more legitimate than to toil for a living. Let us live and let live.[12]
As you understand, we are a banking institution; and as such, we deal with matters involving confidences of clients. This is among the many reasons why we, as a matter of policy, do not allow non-employees to have free access to areas where our employees work. Of course, there are places where visitors may meet our officers and employees to discuss business matters; unfortunately, we have limited areas where our officers and employees can entertain non-official matters.The respondent was undaunted. At 5:30 p.m. of December 21, 1995, he went to the office of Junne Cacay, the Assistant Manager of the Makati Branch. Cacay was then having a conference with Bong Braganza, an officer of the UCPB Sucat Branch. Cacay entertained the respondent although the latter did have an appointment. Cacay even informed him that he had a friend who wanted to procure an insurance policy.[14] Momentarily, a security guard of the bank approached the respondent and told him that it was already past office hours. He was also reminded not to stay longer than he should in the bank premises.[15] Cacay told the guard that the respondent would be leaving shortly.[16] The respondent was embarrassed and told Cacay that he was already leaving.[17]
Furthermore, in keeping with good business practices, the Bank prohibits solicitation, peddling and selling of goods, service and other commodities within its premises as it disrupts the efficient performance and function of the employees.
Please be assured that it is farthest from our intention to discriminate against your client. In the same vein, it is highly improper for us to carve exceptions to our policies simply to accommodate your client’s business ventures.[13]
- It is readily apparent from this exchange of correspondence that defendant bank'’ acknowledged reason for barring plaintiff from its premises - the pending labor case – is a mere pretense for its real vindictive and invidious intent: to prevent plaintiff, and plaintiff alone, from carrying out his trade as an insurance agent among defendant bank’s employees, a practice openly and commonly allowed and tolerated (encouraged even, for some favored proverbial sacred cows) in the bank premises, now being unjustly denied to plaintiff on spurious grounds.
- Defendants, to this day, have refused to act on plaintiff’s claim to be allowed even in only the “limited areas where [the bank’s] officers and employees can entertain non-official matters” and have maintained the policy banning plaintiff from all bank premises. As he had dared exercised his legal right to question his dismissal, he is being penalized with a variation of destierro, available in criminal cases where the standard however, after proper hearing, is much more stringent and based on more noble grounds than mere pique or vindictiveness.
- This appallingly discriminatory policy resulted in an incident on January 31, 1996 at 1:30 p.m. at defendant bank’s branch located at its head office, which caused plaintiff tremendous undeserved humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of face.[26]
… - Defendants’ memorandum and the consequent acts of defendants’ security guards, together with defendant Ongsiapco’s disingenuous letter of December 12, 1995, are suggestive of malice and bad faith in derogation of plaintiff’s right and dignity as a human being and citizen of this country, which acts have caused him considerable undeserved embarrassment. Even if defendants, for the sake of argument, may be acting within their rights, they cannot exercise same abusively, as they must, always, act with justice and in good faith, and give plaintiff his due.[27]
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment issue ordering defendants:In their Answer to the complaint, the petitioners interposed the following affirmative defenses:Plaintiff likewise prays for costs, interest, the disbursements of this action, and such other further relief as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.[28]
- To rescind the directive to its agents barring plaintiff from all bank premises as embodied in the memorandum of November 15, 1995, and allow plaintiff access to the premises of defendant bank, including all its branches, which are open to members of the general public, during reasonable hours, to be able to conduct lawful business without being subject to invidious discrimination; and
- To pay plaintiff P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.
The petitioners likewise interposed compulsory counterclaims for damages.
- Plaintiff had been employed as Branch Operations Officer, Olongapo Branch, of defendant United Coconut Planters Bank.
In or about the period May to June 1992, he was, together with other fellow officers and employees, investigated by the bank in connection with various anomalies. As a result of the investigation, plaintiff was recommended terminated on findings of fraud and abuse of discretion in the performance of his work. He was found by the bank’s Committee on Employee Discipline to have been guilty of committing or taking part in the commission of the following:
- Abuse of discretion in connection with actions taken beyond or outside the limits of his authority.
- Borrowing money from a bank client.
- Gross negligence or dereliction of duty in the implementation of bank policies or valid orders from management.
- Direct refusal or willful failure to perform, or delay in performing, an assigned task.
- Fraud or willful breach of trust in the conduct of his work.
- Falsification or forgery of bank records/documents.
- Plaintiff thereafter decided to contest his termination by filing an action for illegal dismissal against the bank.
Despite the pendency of this litigation, plaintiff was reported visiting employees of the bank in their place of work during work hours, and circulating false information concerning the status of his case against the bank, including alleged offers by management of a monetary settlement for his “illegal dismissal.”- Defendants acted to protect the bank’s interest by preventing plaintiff’s access to the bank’s offices, and at the same time informing him of that decision.
Plaintiff purported to insist on seeing and talking to the bank’s employees despite this decision, claiming he needed to do this in connection with his insurance solicitation activities, but the bank has not reconsidered.- The complaint states, and plaintiff has, no cause of action against defendants.[29]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants are hereby adjudged liable to plaintiff and orders them to rescind and set-aside the Memorandum of November 15, 1995 and orders them to pay plaintiff the following:The trial court held that the petitioners abused their right; hence, were liable to the respondent for damages under Article 19 of the New Civil Code.1) the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages;Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merit.
2) the amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
3) P50,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees;
4) Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[37]
4.1 Did the appellants abuse their right when they issued the Memorandum?The CA rendered a Decision on March 30, 2000, affirming the decision of the RTC with modifications. The CA deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages, but ordered the petitioner bank to pay nominal damages on its finding that latter abused its right when its security guards stopped the respondent from proceeding to the working area near the ATM section to get the check from Casil. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
4.2 Did the appellants abuse their right when Basco was asked to leave the bank premises, in implementation of the Memorandum, on 21 December 1995?
4.3. Did the appellants abuse their right when Basco was asked to leave the bank premises, in implementation of the Memorandum, on 31 January 1995?
4.4. Is Basco entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees?
4.5. Are the appellants entitled to their counterclaim?[38]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated May 29, 1998 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:Costs de oficio.[39]
- The awards for moral and exemplary damages are deleted;
- The award for attorney’s fees is deleted;
- The order rescinding Memorandum dated November 15, 1995 is set aside; and
- UCPB is ordered to pay nominal damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to plaintiff-appellee.
The core issues are the following: (a) whether or not the petitioner bank abused its right when it issued, through petitioner Ongsiapco, the Memorandum barring the respondent access to all bank premises; (b) whether or not petitioner bank is liable for nominal damages in view of the incident involving its security guard Caspe, who stopped the respondent from proceeding to the working area of the ATM section to get the check from Casil; and (c) whether or not the petitioner bank is entitled to damages on its counterclaim.
- Whether or not the appellate court erred when it found that UCPB excessively exercised its right to self-help to the detriment of Basco as a depositor, when on January 31, 1996, its security personnel stopped respondent from proceeding to the area restricted to UCPB’s employees.
- Whether or not the appellate court erred when it ruled that respondent is entitled to nominal damages.
- Whether or not the appellate court erred when it did not award the petitioners’ valid and lawful counterclaim.[40]
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.The petitioners contend that the provision which enunciates the principle of self-help applies when there is a legitimate necessity to personally or through another, prevent not only an unlawful, actual, but also a threatened unlawful aggression or usurpation of its properties and records, and its personnel and customers/clients who are in its premises. The petitioners assert that petitioner Ongsiapco issued his Memorandum dated November 15, 1995 because the respondent had been dismissed from his employment for varied grave offenses; hence, his presence in the premises of the bank posed a threat to the integrity of its records and to the persons of its personnel. Besides, the petitioners contend, the respondent, while in the bank premises, conversed with bank employees about his complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner bank then pending before the Labor Arbiter, including negotiations with the petitioner bank’s counsels for an amicable settlement of the said case.
Petitioner might verily be the owner of the land, with the right to enjoy and to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof, but the exercise of these rights is not without limitations. The abuse of rights rule established in Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person to act with justice, to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. When right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment and to such reasonable restraints established by law.[46]
On its face, the Memorandum barred the respondent, a stockholder of the petitioner bank and one of its depositors, from gaining access to all bank premises under all circumstances. The said Memorandum is all-embracing and admits of no exceptions whatsoever. Moreover, the security guards were enjoined to strictly implement the same.
MEMO TO : MR. JESUS M. BELANIO Vice President Security Department D A T E : 15 November 1995 R E : MR. RUBEN E. BASCO Please be advised that Mr. Ruben E. Basco was terminated for a cause by the Bank on 19 June 1992. He filed charges against the bank and the case is still on-going. In view of this, he should not be allowed access to all bank premises. (Sgd.) LUIS MA. ONGSIAPCO First Vice President Human Resource Division
16 November 1995 TO: ALL GUARDS ON DUTY Strictly adhere/impose Security Procedure RE: Admission to Bank premises. For your compliance. (Signature) 11/16/95 JOSE G. TORIAGA[47]
4.1 As a client of the Bank in the transaction of a regular bank-client activity.For another, the Memorandum, as worded, is contrary to the intention of the petitioners. Evidently, the petitioners did not intend to bar the respondent from access to all bank premises under all circumstances. When he testified, petitioner Ongsiapco admitted that a bank employee whose services had been terminated may be allowed to see an employee of the bank and may be allowed access to the bank premises under certain conditions, viz:
4.2 When the offending party is on official business concerning his employment with the Bank with the prior approval and supervision of the Head of HRD or of the Division Head, or of the Branch Head in case of branches.[48]
ATTY. R. ALIKPALA | |
Q | SO THE PERMISSION YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS MERELY A PERMISSION TO BE GRANTED BY THE SECURITY GUARD? |
A | NO, SIR, NOT THE SECURITY GUARD. THE SECURITY WILL CALL THE OFFICE WHERE THEY ARE GOING. BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME PROCEDURE THEY DO FOR VISITORS. ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SEE ANYBODY IN THE BANK BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED ACCESS OR ENTRY, THEY CALL UP THE DEPARTMENT OR THE DIVISION. |
| |
Q | SO I WANT TO CLARIFY, MR. WITNESS. FORMER BANK EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THE BANK PREMISES UNTIL AFTER THE SECURITY GUARD CALL, WHICH EVER DEPARTMENT THEY ARE HEADED FOR, AND THAT THEY GIVE THE PERMISSION AND THEY TELL THE SECURITY GUARD TO ALLOW THE PERSON? |
A | YES, SIR, THAT IS THE USUAL PROCEDURE. |
| |
Q | IF AN EMPLOYEE RESIGNED FROM THE BANK, SAME TREATMENT? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | IF AN EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED BY THE BANK FOR CAUSE, SAME TREATMENT? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | OUTSIDERS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OR WHO WERE NEVER EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK ALSO MUST ASK PERMISSION? |
A | YES, SIR. BECAUSE THERE IS A SECURITY CONTROL AT THE LOBBY. |
| |
Q | YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A GENERAL RULE? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | IS THIS RULE WRITTEN DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE ANYWHERE? |
A | I THINK THIS IS MORE OF A SECURITY PROCEDURE. |
| |
Q | BUT BEING A HUGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, WE EXPECT COCOBANK HAS ITS PROCEDURE WRITTEN DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE? |
| |
ATTY. A. BATUHAN | |
| YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS NO QUESTION POSED AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. |
| |
C O U R T | |
| ANSWER. IS THERE ANY GUIDELINE? |
| |
A | THERE MUST BE A GUIDELINE OF THE SECURITY. |
| |
Q | BUT YOU ARE NOT VERY FAMILIAR ABOUT THE SECURITY PROCEDURES? |
A | YES, SIR. |
ATTY. R. ALIKPALA | |
Q | MR. ONGSIAPCO, THE AGENCY THAT YOU HIRED FOLLOWS CERTAIN PROCEDURES? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | WHICH OF COURSE ARE UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE BANK? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | AND DID THE SECURITY AGENCY HAVE ANY OF THIS PROCEDURE WRITTEN DOWN? |
A | IT WILL BE GIVEN TO THEM BY THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT. |
| |
Q | BUT IF AN EMPLOYEE IS ONLY ENTERING THE GROUND FLOOR BANK AREA, WHERE CUSTOMERS OF THE BANK ARE NORMALLY ALLOWED, WHETHER DEPOSITORS OR NOT, THEY DON’T NEED TO ASK FOR EXPRESS PERMISSION, IS THAT CORRECT? |
A | YES, IF THEY ARE CLIENT. |
| |
Q | EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT CLIENT, BUT LET US SAY THEY HAVE TO ENCASH A CHECK PAID TO THEM BY SOMEONE? |
A | HE IS A CLIENT THEN. |
| |
Q | BUT HE IS NOT YET A CLIENT WHEN HE ENTERS THE BANK PREMISES. HE ONLY BECOMES … YOU KNOW BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ALL THESE PEOPLE, YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERY CLIENT OF THE BANK SO YOU JUST ALLOW THEM INSIDE THE BANK? |
A | YES, THE PREMISES.[49] |
ATTY. R. ALIKPALA | |
Q | SO MR. WITNESS, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. THE GROUND FLOOR AREA IS WHERE THE REGULAR CONSUMER BANKING SERVICES ARE HELD? WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS PORTION? |
A | THAT IS THE DEPOSIT SERVICING DEPARTMENT. |
| |
Q | WHERE THE …. |
A | WHERE THE PEOPLE TRANSACT BUSINESS. |
| |
ATTY. R. ALIKPALA | |
Q | THEY ARE FREELY ALLOWED IN THIS AREA? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THERE ARE COUNTERS, TELLER, WHERE A PERSON WOULD NORMALLY GO TO LET US SAY OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT OR TO REQUEST FOR MANAGER’S CHECK, IS THAT CORRECT? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | SO, IN THIS PORTION, NO, I MEAN BEYOND THIS PORTION, MEANING THE WORKING AREAS AND SECOND FLOOR UP, OUTSIDERS WILL HAVE TO ASK EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM THE SECURITY GUARD? |
A | YES, SIR. |
| |
Q | AND YOU SAY THAT THE SECURITY GUARDS ARE INSTRUCTED TO VERIFY THE PURPOSE OF EVERY PERSON WHO GOES INTO THIS AREA? |
A | AS FAR AS I KNOW, SIR.[50] |
With respect, however, to the second incident on January 31, 1996, it appears that although according to UCPB security personnel they tried to stop plaintiff-appellee from proceeding to the stairs leading to the upper floors, which were limited to bank personnel only (TSN, pp. 6-9, June 4, 1997), the said act exposed plaintiff-appellee to humiliation considering that it was done in full view of other bank customers. UCPB security personnel should have waited until they were sure that plaintiff-appellee had entered the restricted areas and then implemented the memorandum order by asking him to leave the premises. Technically, plaintiff-appellee was still in the depositing area when UCPB security personnel approached him. In this case, UCPB’s exercise of its right to self-help was in excess and abusive to the detriment of the right of plaintiff-appellee as depositor of said Bank, hence, warranting the award of nominal damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of a plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized and not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered by him (Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 19).[51]The petitioners contend that the respondent is not entitled to nominal damages and that the appellate court erred in so ruling for the following reasons: (a) the respondent failed to prove that the petitioner bank violated any of his rights; (b) the respondent did not suffer any humiliation because of the overt acts of the security guards; (c) even if the respondent did suffer humiliation, there was no breach of duty committed by the petitioner bank since its security guards politely asked the respondent not to proceed to the working area of the ATM section because they merely acted pursuant to the Memorandum of petitioner Ongsiapco, and accordingly, under Article 429 of the New Civil Code, this is a case of damnum absque injuria;[52] and (d) the respondent staged the whole incident so that he could create evidence to file suit against the petitioners.