You are on page 1of 12

Gross Negligence: Abelardo P. Abel v. Philex Mining Corporation G.R. NO. 178976, July 31, 2009 Facts: Petitioner, Abelardo P.

Abel was first hired by respondent, Philex Mining Corporation, as a Contract Claims Assistant of its Legal Department which he occupied for five years prior to his transfer to the Mine Engineering and Draw Department wherein he was appointed as a Unit Head. Sometime in 2002, petitioner’s co-worker, Danilo Lupega, a subsidence Checker at the min site executed an affidavit charging the petitioner of irregularities occurring in the subsidence area of respondent’s mine site. Lupega alleged that petitioner failed to report the incidents of underloading of ANSECA’s trucks during backfilling operations as well as extortion from ANSECA in which the respondent has contract for its backfilling operations. Petitioner denied the allegations. After some investigations and conducting several fact-finding meetings, respondent’s Administrative Division, Litigation, and Investigation Section found petitioner guilty of (1.) fraud resulting in loss of trust and confidence and (2.) gross neglect of duty and was dismissed from employment. Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was dismissed illegally since respondent failed to prove by substantial evidence the alleged fraud committed by the petitioner which would not suffice to lay the basis for respondent’s loss of trust and confidence in petitioner. On respondent’s appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding petitioner guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty as the continually reported ANSECA’s backfilling operations as “okay” per his inspection and did not act on Lupega’s report concerning irregularities. Petitioner’s failure to perform his duty of inspecting ANSECA’s operations constituted sufficient basis for respondent’s loss of trust and confidence. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which was dismissed by the latter. Thus, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was validly dismissed on the following grounds: (1.) fraud resulting in lost of trust and confidence and (2.) gross neglect of duty. Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows the employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a wilful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. Respondent’s evidence against petitioner fails to meet this standard. With regard to the second ground, Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment due to the gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties to warrant removal from service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. The petitioner did not repeatedly fail to

. although not entirely faultless. If reinstatement is no longer feasible. entitled to reinstatement and full backwages without loss of seniority rights and privileges. was dismissed without just cause and procedural due process and consequently. to give him separation pay equivalent to at least one month salary for every year of service. The petitioner.perform his duties for a period of time and the events do not constitute gross and habitual negligence.

August 24. Maralit filed her application for early retirement. 163788.R. Ester B. Maralit filed a complaint for non-payment of retirement benefits and separation pay and for damages against PNB. and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank. and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank. IAG recommended thata Maralit be required to submit her written explanation under oath.950. PNB appealed to NLRC but the latter affirmed Labor Arbiter’s decision. PNB placed Maralit under preventive suspension. PNB dismissed her from service with forfeiture of her retirement benefits. Maralit violated bank policies which resulted in the return of unfunded checks. In 1998. PNB’s Internal Audit Group (IAG) found that Maralit violated Bank policies which resulted in the return of unfunded checks amounting to P54. or a dereliction of duty. Under the PNB issued General Circular. PNB conditionally approved Maralit’s application for early retirement provided that the decision in said investigation does not disqualify her from such benefits. The Court of Appeals set aside NLRC’s decision and found that Maralit was under preliminary investigation when she filed her application for early retirement. Maralit worked for respondent. Moreover. PNB may rightfully terminate Maralit’s services for a just cause including serious misconduct. No. However. Having been dismissed for a just cause. a forbidden act. 2009 Facts: Petitioner. Philippine National Bank. a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. the personnel with pending administrative cases or who under preliminary investigation may avail the Special Separation Incentive Plan (SSIP). Subsequently. PNB offered its personnel an early retirement plan. wilful breach of trust.00. gross violation of bank rules and regulations. Labor Arbiter held that Maralit is entitled for the retirement benefits since she was not under preliminary investigation when she filed her application for early retirement and when PNB approved it. there was still no decision on the administrative case against her. Philippine National Bank G. PNB illegally dismissed her. PNB directed her to submit her written answer under oath and explain why she should not be punished under Article 282 of the Labor Code for serious misconduct. PNB found Maralit guilty of serious misconduct. Issue: Whether or not Maralit was illegally dismissed by Philippine National Bank and entitled to retirement benefits. Later. gross violation of bank rules and regulations. gross violation of bank rules and regulations. . PNB charged her with serious misconduct. She began as a casual clerk and climbed her way to become branch manager. Ruling: The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. In 1998. Maralit is not entitled to her retirement benefits. Serious misconduct is improper conduct.Serious Misconduct: Ester B.000. Maralit v.

for illegal dismissal before Labor Arbiter. v. 2009 Facts: Sometime in 1998. . Concepcion Jr. Issue: Whether or not Tomada was negligent in his job and validly dismissed by his employer. Tomada appealed before the NLRC but the latter dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.R. filed a complaint against RFM Corporation Bakery Flour Division and Jose Ma. Tomada Sr. Tomada did not merely disregard company rules but also failed to live up to his company`s reasonable expectations. Tomada stated that the company dismissed him from work because he was allegedly sleeping on his job during his working time and failed to detect the fire which was taking place inside his work area. September 11. 163270. The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRC`s award of separation pay since he serve 20 years to RFM Corporation. Tomada appealed to Court of Appeals which ruled that Tomada`s dismissal from employment was valid since leaving his post and sleeping while on duty rendered Tomada unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. Tomada`s acts constitute serious misconduct and a just cause of dismissal under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code. By sleeping on the job and leaving his work area without prior authorization. Ruling: The petition has no merit. Eduardo Tomada Sr. NLRC reiterated the Labor Arbiter`s findings that Tomada was not only absent from his are of responsibility at the time of fire but was also sleeping in the screen room. RFM Corporation-Bakery Flour Division and Jose Maria Concepcion III G. Tomada was validly dismissed by RFM Corporation since he is guilty of serious misconduct uner dereliction of duty and gross negligence and he is not entitled to financial assistance or separation pay. He agued that he was not sleeping and never negligent in his job.Serious Misconduct: Eduardo M. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Tomada`s case for lack of merit and found that Tomada was grossly remiss in performing his assigned duties and his separation from work was justified. No.

However. After writing the letter. Moreover. the company issued a Memorandum terminating her for violation of company rules and regulations. Espadero filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Sometime in 2002. she discovered that her time card was already punched in. the misconduct must be serious. Espadero failed to report it to her supervisor. it must be in connection with the employee`s work. Petitioners was ordered to reinstate Espadero and pay her full backwages. the peculiar nature of Espadero`s position aggravates her misconduct. and that her infraction reasonably taints such trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer. No. the petitioners cannot be faulted for losing their turst in Espadero. It also observed that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and unjustified. Issue: Whether or not Espadero’s infraction constitutes serious misconduct. when she reported for duty. To constitute just cause for termination. 2009 Facts: Espadero had been employed by Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet as Cashier. In the instant case. October 2. NLRC reversed Labor Arbiter’s findings. she failed to report to her immediate supervisor the tampering of her time card. Letran and Mary Grace Espadero G. she was asked to wait for an assignment. 179507. Espadero`s position as a cashier is one that requires a high degree of trust and confidence.R. . She claimed that petitioners called her and asked her to make admission letter of admission as condition for her re-employment. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code. must be of such a grave character. The Labor Arbiter declared that petitioners are liable for illegally terminating Espadero since petitioners failed to prove that Espadero deliberately caused another person to punch in her time card on her behalf. Respondents filed a petition before Court of Appeals which rendered a ruling affirming Labor Arbiter’s pronouncement that Espadero was not afforded due process. An employee occupying a job which requires utmost fidelity to her employers.Serious Misconduct: Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet and/or Serafin Ramirez v. She found out that certain Joselito Caliayagan was the one who punched in her time card. Ruling: The Supreme granted the petition. Myrna B. Espadero contented that she was dismissed outright without being given opportunity to explain. Because of this. and not merely trivial or unimportant.

R. Eduardo Pinera G. Pinera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter asserting that petitioner did not have any just or valid cause of terminating his employment. Zeny Ilagan sent a letter to petitioner Superlines Transportation Company complaining against respondent. Thus.000. Issue: Whether or not the act of Pinera constitute serious misconduct and was validly dismissed by his employer. NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbitèr`s decision. It found out that respondent`s dismissal was legal as he was guilty of serious misconduct. hence. Petitioner conducted an investigation and respondent admitted using the money for his personal needs. petitioner terminated his employment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action.00 which she sent her children through petitioner Superlines. Ruling: The Supreme Court granted the petition. respondent was illegally dismissed. However.Serious Misconduct: Superlines Transportation Company Inc. Hence. An employee who fails to account for and deliver the funds entrusted to him is liable for misappropriating the same and is consequently guilty of serious misconduct. . 188742. the petitioner validly dismissed the respondent. the Court of Appeals held that misappropriation did not constitute serious misconduct. v. October 13. 2009 Facts: In 2004. No. Eduardo Pinera for allegedly misappropriating the P1.

Sometime in 1994. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as Engineering Assistant. Berbano received a Memorandum asking him to explain and he subsequently submitted written explanation. Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that PLDT is not guilty of illegal dismissal. The misconduct of Berbano is not serious of nature as to warrant respondent`s dismissal from service. November 27. alleged that he was hired by the respondent. Berbano Jr. Berbano appealed to the Court of Appeals and granted his petition. Issue: Whether or not the misconduct of Berbano was serious as to warrant his dismissal. After due investigation.Simple Misconduct: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. respondent`s misconduct did not result in any economic loss on the part of petitioner since the service features were not yet available in the market at the time respondent caused its unauthorized installation. G. PLDT dismissed him from the service. The records of this case are bereft of any showing that the alleged misconduct was performed by respondent with wrongful intent. Inocencio B. Moreover. Berbano learned that phone number which is under investigation by the Quality Control Inspection Office due to the unauthorized installation of service features which he admitted that he was responsible for such installation for purposes of study and testing as being trained as EWSD OMC Specialist. No. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement of Berbano to his previous position without loss of seniority rights and backwages. 2009 Facts: Inocencio B. . Finding an unacceptable explanation.R. 165199. Berbano Jr.

National Labor Relations Commission. No. Ventura was hired by Genuino Ice Co. . Inc. as Field Auditor sometime in April 1987 up to 2004 or for a period of more than seventeen years. January 27. 2009 Facts: Petitioner.R. Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition. The petitioner filed a case against the company for illegal dismissal. despite his prior knowledge of the criminal activities. and his pleadings before the lower tribunals and before the Supreme Court. The petitioner submitted to the management his Partial Audit Report which provides that Lejos. a clear breach of trust and confidence the company had reposed in him as one of its Auditors. The basis of terminating the employment of petitioner actually came from petitioner himself due to the substantial and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the narration of facts in his Audit Report and his ``Sagot na Sinumpaang Salaysay`` filed before the company.. Petitioner denied the violation and alleged that he informed his immediate superior. G. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter`s decision. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favour of the petitioner. such as care and protection and handling or custody of the employer`s property. loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for dismissing an employee. Subsequently.Loss of Trust and Confidence: Romeo N. Issue: Whether or not petitioner. Under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code. Ventura v. and Hector Genuino. Subsequently. Inc.. Court of Apeals. The company considered it as a serious violation of company rules and regulations particularly a breach of the trust and confidence reposed in petitioner. where the employees is entrusted with duties of confidence on delicate matters. came to his house and revealed the theft of company properties that was committed and the identities of the employees involved. Genuino Ice Co. 182570. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner`s complaint for illegal dismissal must be dismissed having been terminated from employment for a valid cause. petitioner`s nephew. a Notice of Preventive Suspension was served to the petitioner for his failure to report the theft. the company informed petitioner that a case was already filed with Prosecutor`s office impleading him as an accessory to the crime of theft. Romeo N. Petitioner was charged with suspension of evidence and of withholding information to cover up for the crime committed. It cannot be denied that he withheld this information from his immediate supervisor and from the company. Romeo Ventura was terminated for a just cause. An employee of the company named Glicerio Alido informed petitioner that he heard from a contractor of ice-cube generators that the petitioner`s nephew was involved in the theft of the company`s properties who eventually resigned on September 2004.

The Court of Appeals held that petitioens were validly dismissed for wilful breach of confidence. G. Thus. 2009 Facts: On August 12. After initial investigation. In so doing.R. they committed a work-related wilful breach of the trust and confidence reposed in them. 180465. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. The Labor Arbiter found that Dela Cruz was illegally dismissed and ordered for his reinstatement while Lacuata was found to be at fault. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to back wages. July 31.Loss of Trust and Confidence: Eric Dela Cruz and Raul M. By obtaining an altered police report and medical certificate. a salesman of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. they committed acts which are inimical to respondent`s interests and stability not only of management but of the company itself through deceitful means and methods. Inc. Raymund Sales. figured in a motor vehicle accident while driving respondent`s motor vehicle which he was then not authorized to use. Sales was hospitalized of the accident. Further investigation was conducted by respondent and it showed that petitioners conspired to have an ``altered report`` prepared to make it appear that sales was not under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident.. Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition. The NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter`s decision. Lacuata v. . Petitioners were dismissed from employment which lead them to file separate complaints for illegal suspension and dismissal against respondent. the respondent issued separate memoranda to herein petitioners who are sales supervisors to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for violation of Employee`s Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations vis-à-vis Article 282 of the Labor Code.. petitioners deliberately attempt to cover up the fact that Sales was under the influence of liquor. 2000. No.

Manliclic committed a breach of the trust reposed in him by his employer as a bill collector by misappropriating the payment collection which provides the respondent with financial resources to continue its operations. Allas issued a Memorandum informing Estacio of her audit findings and direct her to explain. The petitioners filed illegal dismissal against the respondents. 269. The Court rules that there is valid cause for petitioners` dismissal from eight day sof July and for days of August 2002.R. and registered pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 183196. August 19. On the other hand. Allas issued a Memorandum charging Estacio with gross negligence of duty. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner were illegally dismissed by the respondents. Estacio amounting to P123. incorporated. No. Pampanga I Electric Cooperative. the Internal Auditor of respondent.807.14 remains unremitted to PELCO I. Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition. respondent Engr. 2009 Facts: Respondent.807. The investigating committee found Estacio guilty of dishonesty and gross negligence of duty and recommended her dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits. Sometime in 2002. Allas G. Unsatisfied with Estacio`s explanation. this constitutes valid cause of dismissal from service. and Loliano E. Engr. PELCO I is an electric cooperative duly organized. Engr. . PELCO I cannot afford to continue in its employ dishonest bill collectors.14. Petitioner Estacio had been employed at PELCO I as a bill custodian since 1977 while petitioner Manliclic had been working for PELCO I as a bill collector since 1992. PELCO I submitted accounting of which includes the accountability of Ms. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside NLRC`s decision. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter`s decision and ordered the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and pay them backwages.Loss of Trust and Confidence: Chona Estacio and Leopoldo Manliclic v. Estacio`s improper accounting and records keeping the amount of P123. As a result. Thus. Alas is the General Manager of respondent PELCO I. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of respondents. Inc.

R. a decision to terminate her employment was issued. Subsequently. Gorospe called up the WPO to refer a patient for immediate check up. The Court of Appeals reversed NLRC`s decision and sustained Labor Arbiter`s finding that respondent did not committed insubordination of such wilful and intentional character amounting to a wrongful attitude as warrant her dismissal. Sometime in 2005. SLMC`s Associate Director for Corporate Affairs. When Lagniton called the WPO on the next day.Loss of Trust and Confidence: St. Luke`s Medical Center (SLMC). she found out that the casual employees were still in the office and instructed them to go home. 185933. No. There is no gross and habitual neglect or gross inefficiency on the part of the respondent that would justify her termination from employment. the call was answered by a casual employee who explained that check up could not be administered immediately as Dr. ordering the payment of separation pay. and incompetence since she allowed a trainee and a casual employee to man the WPO during office business hours. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of the respondent. Incorporated v. However. Gorospe wanted. Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition. In her 5 year stay with SLMC. Dr. However. The respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SLMC. As a just cause for an employee`s dismissal. Fadrigo was the Customer Affairs Department Manager of St. Marilen Laguiton informed Fadrigo of what transpired at the WPO and directed her to instruct the casual employees not to report for duty the following day. The respondent cannot be dismissed for loss of confidence arising from alleged gross inefficiency and insubordination since such alleged inefficiency or neglect of duty does not appear to be habitual that would constitute a just cause of the termination of her employment. Luke`s Medical Center. Respondent supervised the Wellness Program Office (WPO) which administers SLMC`s check up packages. However. SLMC alleged that respondent wilfully breached her duty and ignored management directive to immediately pull out the personnel involved in the incident. Jennifer Lynne C. NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter`s decision. Later on. Lagniton sent a Memorandum to Fadrigo and require her to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for insubordination. inefficiency or neglect of duty must not only gross but also habitual. respondent had shown exemplary performance. SLMC lost its trust and confidence in respondent to head a critical and significant department. the respondent failed to talk to them because they already went home. Issue: Whether or not the SLMC validly terminate the respondent on the ground of gross inefficiency or gross neglect of duty. Gorospe reported this to SLMC`s Corporate President. the Court of Appeals ruled that reinstatement is no longer viable considering that respondent no longer enjoys SLMC`s full trust and confidence. Dr. gross inefficiency. 2009 Facts: Respondent. The WPO staff denied that they declined the doctor`s request. Jennifer Lynne C. Thus. November 25. . Fadrigo G.