SY v. NEAT, INC.

G.R. No. 213748. November 27, 2017

DOCTRINE:
Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon
the circumstances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the
dismissal of the employee.
Habitual tardiness alone is a just cause for termination tardiness as it shows a lack of initiative,
diligence, and discipline.

Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every employee, whether in government or private

sector, whereas habitual tardiness is a serious offense that may very well constitute gross or habitual
neglect of duty, a just cause to dismiss a regular employee. Habitual tardiness manifests lack of
initiative, diligence and discipline that are inimical to the employer's general productivity and business
interest.

FACTS:
Petitioners, Ricardo G. Sy and Henry B. Alix, were former employees of Neat, Inc., a corporation
engaged in the distribution of rubber slippers known as "Banana Peel." Ricardo Sy was hired as a
company driver and was dismissed from work on August 4, 2011, while Henry Alix was hired as a
delivery helper/utility and was dismissed from work on May 31, 2011.

The petitioners alleged that they were unjustly dismissed from their employment. Sy claimed that
he was suspended for insubordination and poor performance, while Alix claimed that he was suspended
and subsequently dismissed for resting during working hours. The respondents, on the other hand, argued
that the petitioners were problem employees who had committed various offenses and violations of
company rules and regulations.

LABOR ARBITER’S RULING: dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered the
respondents to pay the petitioners financial assistance.

NLRC: It ruled in favor of the petitioner. NLRC reversed the LA’s decision and ordered the
payment of full back wages and separation pay to the petitioners.

CA: partially granted the petition and found that the dismissal of the petitioners was justified but
ordered the payment of nominal damages for the denial of their right to procedural due process.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners were validly terminated on the gross and habitual neglect of duties,

RULING:
NO. The court ruled that the totality of Sy's infractions did not constitute just cause for his
dismissal. However, it found that Alix's termination was justified based on his habitual tardiness, wasting
time during working hours, and poor performance evaluation.

SY’S DISMISSAL: For gross and habitual negligence of duty to constitute a just cause for
termination of employment, the neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well. Habitual
neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of
the employee.

Suffice it to state that by no stretch of reasoning can the 5 infractions - wearing of improper
uniform, insubordination and poor performance evaluation - imputed against Sy be collectively deemed
as gross and habitual negligence.

According to the court, a careful perusal of the poor performance evaluation given to Sy was
inconsistent with his previous performance appraisal, which rated him as "good" in various aspects.
Therefore, the court ruled that Sy's dismissal was not justified.

ALIX’S DISMISSAL: Habitual tardiness alone is a just cause for termination tardiness as it
shows a lack of initiative, diligence, and discipline. Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every
employee, whether in government or private sector, whereas habitual tardiness is a serious offense that
may very well constitute gross or habitual neglect of duty, a just cause to dismiss a regular employee.
Habitual tardiness manifests lack of initiative, diligence and discipline that are inimical to the employer's
general productivity and business interest.

On Alix’s case, aside from the fact that the 7 written warnings for poor performance and tardiness
were treated as substantial evidence for his continued infractions against the company rules and
regulations, thus, justifying his termination, Alix’s habitual tardiness alone is a just cause for termination
tardiness as it shows a lack of initiative, diligence, and discipline. The court also emphasized that a series
of infractions, when put together, may constitute serious misconduct, which is a just cause for dismissal.
Therefore, the court ruled that Alix's dismissal was justified.

In terms of procedural requirements, petitioners were dismissed without just cause and due
process. The court emphasized that notice to the employee should clearly state the grounds for dismissal,
and the employee should be given the opportunity to be heard regarding their infractions. In this case, the
employees were not given the chance to explain their actions and defend themselves against the
termination.

As a result, the court awarded separation pay, backwages, and other benefits to the petitioners. However,
the court limited the award of separation pay, backwages, and other benefits to Sy because he was not
entirely faultless. The court also upheld the award of nominal damages to both petitioners as a vindication
of their violated rights.