Student No.

2017835241

CORPUZ – MORPHEUS & ASSOCIATES

FROM : CHRISTLE GRACE CORPUZ, Managing Partner

TO: PRESIDENT, Z BANK

SUBJECT: Legal Issue pertaining to Bank’s AWOL Manager

Pertinent Facts
The client, Z Bank is a bank which has a Head Office in Taguig City, seeking relief for the
issue pertaining to an AWOL MANAGER, who has address on Mandaluyong City. The
AWOL MANAGER is an employee of Z Bank, whose is receiving salary every 30th of the
month amounting to Php 100,000, has been absent without leave for the past two (2)
weeks which resulted to past due of one of the Bank’s client, Madonna who has address
in San Juan. The Bank went to Madonna and advised that the loan was already past due,
but the client allegedly paid already presenting a handwritten scribble, and unofficial
receipt saying, ‘RECEIVED BY: AWOL MANAGER’S NAME, Php 100,000.00
(AMORTIZATION) CASH’. Madonna’s payment was already made before the AWOL
MANAGER become absent. As per client, it has become the practice of the Bank to
require the paying clients to go there to their branch to pay. The subject of the case
involves a loan which was secured under a real estate mortgage over a lot located in
Tagaytay City. Such loan has an amortization term of ten (10) years, to which Madonna
already paid for 36 months on a monthly basis with an interest rate of six percent (6%)
per annum. Furthermore, the contract of loan contains a penalty clause of one (1) percent
per delay of amortization and there is no stipulation of the place of suit in cases of default.
The AWOL MANAGER, being absent without leave and proper notice raises a suspicion
whether his acts constitutes violation of the Bank’s policies and the cause Madonna’s
default of payment of her mortgage.

Brief
The acts of the AWOL MANAGER raise a controversy and circumvention of the Revised
Penal Code particularly Article 315 (b) referring to estafa by acting fraudulently. It is in our
humble opinion that a criminal case may be filed to the AWOL MANAGER and a justifiable
measures may be taken against the person anchoring the Bank’s internal policy.
 Student No. 2017835241

Discussion

Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code provides as follow:

Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means x x x.

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money goods, or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of or return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money, goods, or other
property.

As a rule, estafa may be committed when there is unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,

by deceit or by fraudulent means. Estafa could relatively be valued as a fraudulent act
breaching a legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence. It is also a deceit by false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives
or is intended to deceive another so he shall act upon it to his legal injury 1. The
commission of this crime can also be aligned when the entrustee failed to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents, or instruments covered by a trust receipt,
to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt or
the failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were not sold or
disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipts constitute estafa2.

Existence of Abuse of Confidence and Misappropriation

A person to be liable under Art. 315, par. 1(b), the following elements must be present:
(a) That money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or
on commission or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the same; (b) That there be misappropriation or conversion
of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; and (c)

1 Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 416 SCRA 418 (1998).

2 Sec. 13 Presidential Decree No. 115. Promulgated January 28, 1973.
 Student No. 2017835241

That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; (d) That
there is demand by the offended party to the offender3. In the case at hand, the AWOL
MANAGER is bound by the obligation to observe the standard operating procedure of the
bank in terms of facilitating the payment of their customers. It is more likely that the AWOL
MANAGER, duly received the payment from Madonna but failed to remit the proceeds of
the loan to the Z bank. Consequently, an element of misappropriation is also visible upon
looking into the facts this case. Misappropriation of the thing received can be viewed as
act of taking something for one’s own benefit4.

Acts of the AWOL Manager is a terminable offense and the Bank may withhold the
salary

If duly proven that the AWOL Manager intended to commit such, then the latter can be
terminated due to his abandonment of work. Basically, abandonment happen when the
employee deliberately or unjustly refuses to resume his work 5. To simply put, the
employee no longer intends to continue render service based from the contractual
employment. Hence, constituting a neglect of duty and is a just cause for termination of
employment under paragraph (b) of Article 282 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, the
Bank’s Internal Policy will be activated as a result of the acts and conduct of AWOL
Manager.

Conclusion

Looking into the factual circumstances, such as the deviances into the normal transaction
of remittance of payment, it is visible that the AWOL Manager skipped into the normal
operating procedure of the Bank. His acts raise a question as to why he left the office
without due notice and leaving a cloud of doubt to his employer. Whether his intent is to
defraud or not, he circumvented a law and his acts are prejudicial not only to the bank but
also to its customers. His absence on the matter not only manifest guilty but also his intent
to do such overt act without any hesitation.
In light of the premises discussed, it is our humble opinion that the AWOL Manager
potentially violated the law particularly the provisions of Art. 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal
Code. Hence, a criminal case should be instituted and recovery for damages must be
considered.

3 Fontanilla v. People, GR No. 120948. Promulgated July 5, 1996.

4 Serona v Court of Appeals, GR No. 130423. Promulgated November 18, 2002.
5 Dup Sound Philippines v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 168317. Promulgated November 21, 2011.