the subject deposit could not have been received by the bank and entered in Harrington's savings account without the participation of the other bank employees. The PCIB could have exercised prudence before taking oppressive actions against Josephine.All told, we find nothing in the record which would warrant the reversal of the position held by the RTC and the CA. Based on the above discussion, we find the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in Josephine's favor proper.WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIEDand consequently, the May 23, 2011 decision and the December 7, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68288 are AFFIRMEDin toto.SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryVelasco,*Villarama, Jr.,**Mendoza,and Leonen, JJ., concur.Brion,**(Acting Chairperson) Endnotes:*Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 2282 dated November 13, 2015.**Designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 2281 dated November 13, 2015.**Designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated September 5, 2012.1Rollo,pp. 8-25.2Id. at 27-38; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, and concurred in by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario.3Id. at 40-41.4See Article 113 of the Labor Code.5San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v. Judge Bersamira, G.R. No. 87700, June 13, 1990, 264 Phil. 875, 884, to wit:"The claim of SanMig that the action below is for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code would not suffice to keep the case within the jurisdictional boundaries of regular Courts. That claim for damages is interwoven with a labor dispute existing between the parties and would have to be ventilated before the administrative machinery established for the expeditious settlement of those disputes. To allow the action filed below to prosper would bring about "split jurisdiction" which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice (Philippine Communications, Electronics and Electricity Workers Federation vs. Hon. Nolasco, L-24984, 29 July 1968, 24 SCRA 321)."6Yusen Air and Sea Service Phils, v. Villamor,G.R, No. 154060, August 16, 2005, 504 Phil. 437, 446-447, citing Ocheda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85517, October 16, 1992, 214 SCRA 629.7G.R. No. L-47739, June 22, 1983,122 SCRA 671, 676.8G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974, 58 SCRA 771, 774.9Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.10Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.11G.R. No. 156841, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 466, 479-480, citingGlobe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 81262, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 778, 783-784.