Valiao v. CA
Petitioner then
G.R. No. 146621 July 30, 2004
Facts:
Petitioner was appointed by private respondent West Negros College (WNC) as Student
Affairs Office (SAO) Director and was later assigned as Acting Director, Alumni Affairs Office.
Petitioner was thereafter transferred to a staff position and designated as Records Chief at
the Registrar’s Office but was again re-assigned as a typist. The latest re-assignment was
due to his tardiness and absences, as reflected in the summary of tardiness and absences
report, which showed him to have been absent or late for work from a minimum of seven (7)
to a maximum of seventy-five (75) minutes for the period March to October 31, 1991, and to
have reported late almost every day for the period November to December 1991.
His explanations were either unacceptable or unsatisfactory. Subsequent reports also
showed that he did not change his habits resulting in tardiness and absences. He was even
caught one time manipulating the bundy clock, thus necessitating another memorandum to
him asking him to explain his dishonest actuations in accomplishing the daily attendance
logbook and in using the bundy clock.
Petitioner received a suspension order without pay for fifteen (15) because of dishonesty in
reporting his actual attendance. After serving the suspension, the petitioner reported back.
Many more instances of poor performance and habitual absenteeism ensued thereafter until
petitioner was arrested for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Petitioner was asked to explain within 24 hours why he should not be terminated as a result
of the raid and the charges against him for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425 as amended.
Petitioner allegedly was not able to answer immediately since he was in jail and received said
memorandum only on January 30, 1993, although his wife had earlier received the
memorandum on January 28, 1993.
Petitioner was eventually dismissed for failure to answer said memorandum. Upon
petitioner’s request for due process, he was placed under preventive suspension and an
investigation committee was organized to conduct the probe. The investigation committee
recommended the dismissal of petitioner. A notice of termination was then sent to petitioner
informing him of his termination from the service for serious misconduct and gross and
habitual neglect of duty. Petitioner filed a Complaint against WNC for illegal suspension,
illegal dismissal, backwages, salary differential for salary increases and other benefits
granted after his dismissal as well as for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter found no justifiable reason to place the petitioner under preventive
suspension as there was no serious or imminent threat to the life or property of his employer
or co-workers but found the dismissal of the petitioner from WNC to be valid due to
absenteeism and tardiness.
On appeal to the NLRC, the latter affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals but this was
dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner duly filed a Motion of Reconsideration, which was
denied by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner was validly dismissed.
Held:
Petitioner’s dismissal from employment is valid and justified.
For an employee’s dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause and (b)
the employee must be afforded due process.7
Serious misconduct and habitual neglect of duties are among the just causes for terminating
an employee under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Gross negligence connotes want of
care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform
one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. 8The Labor Arbiter’s
findings that petitioner’s habitual absenteeism and tardiness constitute gross and habitual
neglect of duties that justified his termination of employment are sufficiently supported by
evidence on record. Petitioner’s repeated acts of absences without leave and his frequent
tardiness reflect his indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in his work. More importantly,
his repeated and habitual infractions, committed despite several warnings, constitute gross
misconduct unexpected from an employee of petitioner’s stature. This Court has held that
habitual absenteeism without leave constitute gross negligence and is sufficient to justify
termination of an employee.9
However, petitioner claims that he was dismissed not for his tardiness or absences but for his
arrest as a suspected drug user. His claim, however, is merely speculative. We find such
contention devoid of basis. First, the decisions of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court
of Appeals are indubitable. They show that indeed petitioner had incurred numerous and
repeated absences without any leave. Moreover, he was not punctual in reporting for work.
Second, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the NLRC did not base its conclusions on the fact
of the arrest of petitioner for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425 but on the totality of the number of
infractions incurred by the petitioner during the period of his employment in different positions
he occupied at WNC. Even without the arrest incident, WNC had more than enough basis for
terminating petitioner from employment. It bears stressing that petitioner’s absences and
tardiness were not isolated incidents but manifested a pattern of habituality. The totality of
infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be
considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses
committed by him should not be taken singly and separately but in their totality. Fitness for
continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of
character, conduct, and ability separate and independent of each other.