LAFUENTE v. DAVAO CENTRAL WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC.

,
G.R. No. 247410, March 17, 2021
DOCTRINE:
In order to warrant the dismissal of the employee for just cause, Article 297 282(b) of the Labor Code
requires the negligence to be gross and habitual. Gross negligence is defined as the want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may
be affected. Habitual neglect connotes repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances, which should not be limited to a single or isolated act of
negligence.

FACTS:
This case involves a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Nilo D. Lafuente and Billy C.
Panaguiton against Davao Central Warehouse Club, Inc. (DCWCI) and Lily S. Yap. Lafuente was hired
by DCWCI in 1993 as Dispatching-in-Charge, while Panaguiton was hired in 1995 as Lafuente's
Assistant Dispatcher.

On September 5, 2016, DCWCI issued a preventive suspension against petitioners and charged
them with "Gross and Habitual Neglect by the Employee of His Duties" and "Fraud/Willful Breach by the
Employee of the Trust Reposed on Him by His Employer."

The company required them to explain why they should not be administratively charged for the
missing/loss of several appliances in the warehouse under their watch. In response, Lafuente denied
having knowledge of the incident and explained that he had no authority to stay in the warehouse.
Panaguiton stated that he would take over the checking of the units and handle the requested items for
dispatch only when Lafuente was not around. He also reported the missing units to his manager but only
found empty appliance boxes.

After an investigation, DCWCI found petitioners guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties
and terminated their employment. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they
were not remiss in their duties and that the incident was attributable to other individuals.

LABOR ARBITER’’S RULING: It ruled in favor of petitioners, stating that their dismissal was
unjustified. LA held that their primary duty was to ensure the final release of items sold or transferred,
and they were not directly accountable for the stocks inside the warehouse.

Hence, this petition. Petitioners argued that they are not directly accountable to conduct a
monthly inventory of stocks and that there is a bodega-in-charge, a duty guard in the warehouse, and an
encoder of incoming and outgoing stocks.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was justified based on their gross and habitual
neglect of duties
RULING:
YES. The court ruled that the employees' negligence and failure to report the missing stocks
constituted gross and habitual neglect of their duties.

In order to warrant the dismissal of the employee for just cause, Article 297 282(b) of the Labor
Code requires the negligence to be gross and habitual. Gross negligence is defined as the want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected. Habitual neglect connotes repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances, which should not be limited to a single or isolated act of negligence.

However, in several cases, the Court has departed from this requirement, like where the employer
suffered substantial losses because of the gravity of negligence displayed by the employee.

In this case, what aggravated petitioners' gross and habitual negligence was their failure to report
the incident after discovering that there were already missing stocks in the warehouse. As dispatchers,
their duty was not limited to ensuring the final release of items sold or transferred. They were responsible
for controlling, verifying, and inspecting the disposal of items from the warehouse. Their failure to report
the missing stocks, despite being aware of the incident, showed a lack of diligence and care in performing
their duties.

Their actions or lack thereof facilitated the unauthorized dispatch of products from the
warehouse, resulting in losses for DCWCI. Hence, the employees were answerable for the losses incurred
by their employer.
 Santos v. Integrated Pharmaceutical, Inc.
G.R. NO. 204620, JULY 11, 2016
DOCTRINE:
Habitual tardiness and/or absenteeism is a form of neglect of duty as the same exhibit the employee's
deportment towards work and is therefore inimical to the general productivity and business of the
employer.

FACTS:.
Integrated Pharma is a pharmaceutical marketing and distributing company. It engaged the services
of petitioner, Rowena A. Santos, as "Clinician," tasked with the duty of promoting and selling
Integrated Pharma's products.

Petitioner's work includes visiting doctors in different hospitals located in Makati, Taguig, Pateros and
Pasay. Sometime in April 2010, petitioner received a memorandum from Alicia E. Gamos (Gamos),
her immediate supervisor and District Manager of Integrated Pharma, relative to her failure to remit her
collections and to return the CareSens POP demonstration unit to the office, at a specified time.

Few days later, the National Sales Manager for Pharmaceutical Division of Integrated Pharma,
called the petitioner to a meeting. Suarez informed petitioner that the management discovered that
instead of reporting P2.00 as the actual amount of her travelling expense in going to the Fort
Bonifacio Hospital, petitioner charged Integrated Pharma P10.00 as and for her transportation expense.

Then in the morning of April 21, 2010, respondents attempted to serve upon petitioner a
memorandum denominated as Memo on Padding of Expense Report charging petitioner with (i)
attempting to coerce her immediate supervisor to pad her transportation expenses and (ii) insubordination
for not following the instructions of her immediate supervisor to report the true amount of her
transportation expenses. In the same memorandum, respondents required petitioner to submit a
written explanation within 24 hours in "aid [of] investigation."

Petitioner, however, refused to accept said memorandum. Subsequently, petitioner received

through registered mail another memorandum likewise dated April 21, 2010 but already denominated as
Termination of Employment. It enumerated five infractions which, allegedly, constrained respondents to
terminate petitioner's employment, one of the reason was her alleged insubordination e.g., failure to
arrive at appointed meeting time, failure to submit reports at designated hour, and, ultimately, refusal to
accept the memo asking for a written explanation on the incidents in question after verbally
admitting to committing the stated offenses.

Petitioner thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary, separation pay, and
13th month pay, with claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioner was guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty for being excessively
tardy.

RULING:
YES. Petitioner’s tardiness is so excessive that it already affects the general productivity and
business of Integrated Pharma. It has amounted to gross and habitual neglect of her duty, which is a just
cause for terminating employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
 Records reveal that petitioner was indeed habitually tardy. She was always late in district
meetings and in the submission of her periodic reports. These are borne out by the evaluation conducted
by petitioner's former supervisor, where it was observed that petitioner was always late during District
Meetings and in passing required reports. Correspondingly, in a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest),
petitioner was given a low mark of 1.5 as to punctuality.

Despite such rock-bottom mark, however, petitioner's evaluation conducted barely two years later
by her new supervisor did not show any sign of improvement. She still failed to report on time both in the
office and during regular field work visits.

Also, the 2010 memorandum bears out petitioner's lack of deep sense of duty and punctuality.
Petitioner was chastised for arriving in the office late when she was given the specific instruction to be at
the office in the morning of said date. There was also an instance where the petitioner was late for about 4
½ hours for her certain appointment. Her payslips also reveal several deductions from her salary due to
tardiness and absences.

These pieces of documentary evidence already constitute substantial evidence (or that amount of
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion) proving
petitioner's habitual tardiness.
 Japos v. First Agrarian Reform Multi-Purpose Cooperative
G.R. No. 208000, July 26, 2017
DOCTRINE:
Settled is the rule that an employee's habitual absenteeism without leave, which violated company rules
and regulation, is sufficient to justify termination from the service.
FACTS:
Petitioner, Virgel Dave Japos, was employed by FARMCOOP as a gardener and was dismissed
for unauthorized absences.

FARMCOOP is a registered domestic cooperative engaged in banana contract growing. Japos

was employed by FARMCOOP in 2001. FARMCOOP's Personnel Policies and Procedures state that
absences must be authorized by the immediate superior and that unauthorized absences can lead to
disciplinary action, including dismissal.

Japos incurred several absences without permission, for which he received written warnings. On
June 22-28, 2005, Japos was absent without permission and claimed to be sick with influenza.
FARMCOOP issued a Notice of Termination on July 5, 2005, effective July 6, 2005. On the same day,
Japos reported back to work but was not allowed to return as he did not present a medical certificate. He
submitted a medical certificate on July 7, 2005, but it did not indicate the specific period of his illness.

Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Japos is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty

RULING:
YES. Private respondent Japos was validly dismissed for a cause. Under Article 282(b) of the
Labor Code, gross and habitual neglect of duty by the employee of his duties is a just cause for the
termination of the latter's employment.

Settled is the rule that an employee's habitual absenteeism without leave, which violated company
rules and regulation, is sufficient to justify termination from the service. Habitual tardiness and/or
absenteeism is a form of neglect of duty as the same exhibit the employee's deportment towards work and
is therefore inimical to the general productivity and business of the employer. This is especially true when
the tardiness and/or absenteeism occurred frequently and repeatedly within an extensive period of time.
In the instant case, Japos failed to refute and controvert the fact of his habitual absenteeism.
Instead, he admitted his absences though he tried to justify the same by belatedly submitting a medical
certificate. Unfortunately, said medical certificate did not help his case. Moreover, it should be noted that
Japos' previous infractions, past and present absences considered, can be used collectively by petitioner as
a ground for his dismissal. As held in a case, previous infractions may be used as justification for an
employee's dismissal from work in connection with a subsequent similar offense.
 Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc.
G.R. No. 227175
DOCTRINE: “TOTALITY PRINCIPLE”
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 record of
an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an
employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper
imposable penalty.

FACTS:
Petitioner, Neren Villanueva, was employed by Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc. (GRRI) as a
part-time employee in 2002 and became a regular employee in 2003. She was later promoted to head of
the Housekeeping Department in 2005 and head of the Front Desk Department in 2008.

In 2013, the petitioner was charged with violating company policies, including abuse of authority
and threat to a person in authority. GRRI found her guilty and imposed a suspension and later reduced the
penalty to a five-day suspension.

In 2014, the petitioner was transferred to the Team Building Department, but she refused to sign
the Notice of Transfer and remained at her previous station for two days before reporting to her new
department. She also sent an email to management questioning her transfer.

As a result, petitioner was charged with two infractions, i.e., (l) insubordination for her failure to
sign the Notice to Transfer and placed under preventive suspension and (2) habitual neglect for her
absences without leave from March 22 to March 26, 2014, as shown by the two memoranda served on
her. After failing to report back to work, she was terminated for various reasons.

The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims. Petitioner alleged
withheld her signature on the Notice to Transfer because she was awaiting answers to the questions she
raised to the management via e-mail. She cannot be forced to affix her signature thereon if she does not
really fully understand the reasons behind and the consequences of her transfer. Furthermore, she did not
report back to work after serving her preventive suspension because the management did not reply to her
query as to when she needed to report Also, she insists that her past infractions cannot be used as basis for
her dismissal. Hence, she argued that there is no basis to hold her liable for willful disobedience and
habitual neglect of duty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was validly dismissed from employment

RULING:
YES. While petitioner cannot be held liable for gross and habitual neglect of duty, the SC
justified Villanueva’s dismissal through the principle of "totality of infractions" and considered
Villanueva's previous infractions in determining the imposable sanction for her current infraction.

Jurisprudence provides that in order to constitute a valid cause for dismissal, the neglect of duties
must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence has been defined as "the want or absence of or failure
to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them." On the other hand, habitual neglect "imparts
repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances." A single or
isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.
 Verily, petitioner's four-day absence without leave is not gross nor habitual, she was still guilty of
a violation. petitioner's absences are still not justified. Petitioner alleged that she did not report back to
work after serving her preventive suspension because the management did not reply to her query as to
when she needed to report. This reasoning does not justify her absences.

The Notice of Preventive Suspension served on her clearly stated that the period of her return to
work. Thus, she was expected to report back to work on her next working day. Yet, she reported only on
March 26, 2014. Therefore, while there may be no basis to dismiss her on the ground of gross and
habitual neglect, petitioner is still guilty of having committed a violation. It is here that totality of
infractions may be considered to determine the imposable sanction for her current infraction.

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
record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out
since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the
proper imposable penalty.

It is also worth mentioning that GRRI had already previously warned petitioner that the penalty
for her next infraction would be elevated to dismissal. Thus, the dismissal of petitioner, on the basis of the
principle of totality of infractions, is justified.
 Rustan Commercial Corp. v. Raysag
G.R. No. 219664
DOCTRINE:
While the rule is that a single or isolated act of negligence is not sufficient to constitute a just cause for
the dismissal of the employee, the same, however, is not absolute. An infraction, even if not habitual,
may warrant a dismissal under appropriate circumstances.

An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person admittedly
guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. This holds true specially if the employee's
continued tenure is patently inimical to the employer's interest.

FACTS:
The respondents, Dolora F. Raysag and Merlinda Entrina, were employed by the petitioner,
Rustan Commercial Corporation, as Inventory Specialists at the Cosmetics, Perfumeries Toiletries (CP T)
stockroom in Rustan's Department Store, Makati City.

In July 2011, it was discovered that a significant amount of La Prairie skin care merchandise was
missing from the CP & T stockroom. The petitioner conducted an investigation and found that there were
inventory discrepancies and missing items amounting to a P509, 004.

Based on the findings of the investigation, the petitioner sent Notices to Explain to the
respondents, accusing them of negligence and incompetence in their duties as Inventory Specialists.

The respondents claimed that they submitted their written explanation but failed to keep a
receiving copy. An administrative investigation hearing was conducted, and the petitioner recommended
the termination of the respondents' employment and held them liable for the losses. The petitioner served
Notices of Preventive Suspension to the respondents and eventually terminated their employment, citing
gross negligence and violation of company rules. The respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of benefits, and damages.

The CA found respondents guilty of simple negligence only hence, their dismissal was illegal.
The CA even goes further into ratiocinating that even assuming that respondents' duties and
responsibilities included the safeguarding of the items in the stockroom, their negligence cannot be
considered as gross and habitual, pointing out that in their long years of service with petitioner, Raysag
for 37 years and Entrina for 18 years, they never had a single infraction prior to the incident subject of
this case. According to the CA, the fact that no reports of any discrepancy was reported in the inventory
stocks under the supervision of respondents during the long years of their service at petitioner company
only goes to show that respondents were diligently performing their responsibilities to the satisfaction of
petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, respondents were illegally dismissed for lack of substantial evidence that they
were guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty.

RULING:
YES. There is gross and habitual negligence on the part of Dolora Raysag and Merlinda Entrina
in failing to observe dedication, diligence and vigilance in performing their crucial functions as Inventory
Specialist.
 While the rule is that a single or isolated act of negligence is not sufficient to constitute a just
cause for the dismissal of the employee, the same, however, is not absolute. An infraction, even if not
habitual, may warrant a dismissal under appropriate circumstances.

The Court disagrees with the observation of the CA that the negligence of respondents is not
habitual. The fact that there was only one single investigation that led to a finding of respondents' gross
neglect of duty does not necessarily mean that respondents committed a single and isolated act of
negligence. It must be stressed that the losses of La Prairie merchandise subject of the investigation and
subsequent termination of respondents covered a period of 10 months or from January to October 10,
2011. Clearly, respondents' neglect of duty is habitual. Logic dictates that the loss of 58 items of La
Prairie merchandise could not have happened only in a single instance of neglect; otherwise, a bulk of
cosmetic products taken outside the CP & T stockroom and outside from Rustan's Makati premises would
have been easily detected.

Petitioner is engaged in retail business. Inventory is a vital part of its operations. Precisely the
purpose for which respondents have been employed by the company as such is to safeguard the integrity
of stocks and merchandise in the stockroom, thereby preventing pilferage, theft, or any cause of losses of
stocks or merchandise items entrusted under their watch. Unfortunately, respondents failed to perform
their essential duties as Inventory Specialists and their negligent acts constituted wanton failure to fulfill
their responsibilities.

An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person

admittedly guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. This holds true specially if the
employee's continued tenure is patently inimical to the employer's interest.

In this case, the Court finds, under the circumstances, that it was just and reasonable for petitioner
to dismiss respondents even, assuming, that it was the first time that they committed the infraction. The
Court takes into account two important factors. First is the quantity and the substantial amount or value of
the merchandise lost, amounting to P509,044.00. Second, respondents' position is necessarily one of trust
and confidence.

Petitioner cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of respondents who are
entrusted with the care, custody, and safekeeping of high-end cosmetic products, but who just committed
gross negligence which resulted to missing assigned products amounting to an enormous amount of
around half a million pesos. Clearly, respondents' continued tenure is patently inimical to the petitioner's
business interest.
 PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. GENOVE
G.R. No. 202049, June 15, 2020
DOCTRINE:
Gross neglect of duty denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a
duty. It refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. Furthermore, to
warrant removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual. Thus, a single or isolated
act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of an employee.

FACTS:
This case involves a bank teller who was dismissed from her employment due to alleged
dishonesty, gross negligence, violation of the bank's policies and Code of Conduct, and qualified theft.
The accusation stemmed from a discrepancy found in the amount of money Genove counted for a
customer.

On July 7, 2004, the spouses Ildebrando and Emma Basubas went to petitioner's branch to
purchase a cashier's check. They brought two bags of money to the teller's counter and asked respondent,
who was the bank teller, to count the money. Respondent started counting the money but had to stop from
time to time to assist other customers. When she opened the second bag, she found that the money inside
consisted of various denominations instead of the expected P1,000 bills. She called Mr. Basubas to
oversee the counting of the money and found a difference of P13,000 from the amount of the cashier's
check. Mr. Basubas handed the difference to respondent, and they left the bank.

Later, the spouses Basubas returned and claimed that their collections lacked P13,000.
Respondent recounted her cash and found that it balanced with the recorded transactions. The spouses
Basubas left again but called respondent after the bank had closed and asked for another recount.
Respondent agreed and allowed them to enter the bank premises. After another recount, the spouses
Basubas and their supplier left the bank. It was then discovered that a deposit slip with P12,000 was
found under a cabinet near the teller's cage, and a P1,000 bill was found taped inside a sliding door
cabinet.

Petitioner imputes gross negligence (or gross neglect of duty) against respondent for her failure to
comply with the bank's policies and rule of procedure when she: 1) initially counted the monies inside the
two bags without the presence of the spouses Basubas; and b) did not require the spouses Basubas to
prepare a deposit slip showing the breakdown of the denominations inside the said bags of money.

On the ground of gross negligence, respondent countered that a single or isolated act of
negligence does not constitute a just cause for her dismissal from her employment. While she admitted
that she took a risk in not following the proper procedure in deference to a valued and well-known client
of the bank, it was tolerated and accepted by the latter as shown by the previous and similar transactions
she facilitated earlier that day and even before she was transferred to the Cebu Mandaue-San Miguel
branch of petitioner. She further alleged that she did her best to accommodate the spouses Basubas in
counting more than a million pesos in different denominations while also entertaining other clients of the
bank, being the only teller of the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Genove is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty

RULING:
 NO. The court found that the Genove’s actions only amounted to simple negligence, not gross
negligence or willful breach of trust.

Gross neglect of duty denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to
perform a duty. It refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to
act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. Furthermore, to warrant
removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual. Thus, a single or isolated act of
negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of an employee.

Respondent's failure to initially count the monies inside the two bags provided for by spouses
Basubas, in their presence, and not requiring the latter to prepare a denomination breakdown of the same
merely shows simple negligence on her part, considering that respondent was the lone teller attending to
all clients of the bank at the time of the incident. Furthermore, it should have been expected that a single
teller cannot handle all the transactions coming from its clients every day, all at the same time. Mistakes
are bound to happen given that employees are also human beings that are very susceptible to fatigue and
exhaustion, especially if overworked on a regular basis.
 SYSTEMS AND PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.
BALLESTEROS
G.R. NO. 217119, 25 APRIL 2022,
DOCTRINE:
Habitual tardiness alone is a just cause for termination. 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:
Michelle Elvi C. Ballesteros started working for petitioner, SPID Corp. in 2005 and was
eventually promoted to administrative staff. In February 2011, she was asked to resign by the company
because she was pregnant and going to have two children to take care of. Castro even told Ballesteros that
she was going to be terminated anyway so resignation would be a better option. Ballesteros refused to
resign.

Ballesteros talked to Ronniel Cunanan (Cunanan), SPID Corp.'s Administration and Finance
Officer, who confirmed that the company is indeed asking Ballesteros to tender her resignation, saying
that although she did not have a bad record that would justify her termination, the company decided to
terminate her for the same reasons given above.

After giving birth, Ballesteros was eventually terminated by the company. The company alleged
that Ballesteros' employment was terminated based on her incompetence and inefficiency in the
performance of duties. Also, SPID Corp. lost its confidence and trust in Ballesteros because of her
continued neglect of duty and habitual absences and tardiness.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Ballesteros was guilty of habitual tardiness and undertime

RULING:
NO. absent reliable and reasonable proof that Ballesteros was indeed habitually tardy, and
habitually incurred undertime for more than 10 days in a month for six months, the Court cannot conclude
that she is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty.

Habitual tardiness alone is a just cause for termination. 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.

Here, the Court finds that although habitual tardiness is a just cause for termination, the company
failed again to substantiate Ballesteros' habitual tardiness and undertime. The handwritten listing and
unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated and, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence of
which the listing and print-outs are of that nature should be rejected as evidence without any rational
probative value even in administrative proceedings.

Succinctly, the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish the employee's guilt, and
in this case, respondent company failed to present sufficient evidence to prove Ballesteros' guilt.
 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.
 CASCO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 200571. February 19, 2018
DOCTRINE:
Negligence is "the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury."

The test of negligence is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? The law
considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and
prudence, and determines liability by that

FACTS:
Josephine Casco was a Nurse Supervisor at Capitol Medical Center who was dismissed from her
position due to alleged gross negligence resulting in the loss of hospital equipment.

Casco had been working at the medical center since 1984 and had been promoted to various
positions, eventually becoming the Nurse Supervisor of the Operating Room in 2002. On January 25,
2008, during a calibration of the Operating Room's vaporizers, it was discovered that several hospital
equipment, including vaporizers, monitors, and pulse oximeters, were missing.

Casco filed an incident report stating the missing equipment. Subsequently, Capitol issued a
notice of investigation and eventually terminated Casco's employment due to gross negligence resulting in
the loss of equipment.

LABOR ARBITER’S RULING: ruled in favor of Casco, declaring her dismissal to be illegal.

NLRC: reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and ruled that petitioner Casco had been negligent
in her duties and had lost the trust and confidence of her employers.

CA: sustained NLRC’s decision. They based their conclusion on her Job Summary that included
her being accountable for losses and equipment malfunction, among others.

Hence, this appeal. Petitioner argued that she was not responsible for the custody of the
equipment and she firmly believe that her dismissal was unjustified.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for gross habitual negligence

RULING:
NO. The court concluded that the petitioner was illegally terminated from her employment and
ordered her reinstatement to her former position without loss of seniority rights, as well as the payment of
back wages.

Negligence is "the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury."

The test of negligence is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence
and prudence, and determines liability by that.

In order for the petitioner to be held liable for gross and habitual negligence of duty, the
respondents must clearly show that part of her duty as a Nurse Supervisor was to be the custodian of
hospital equipment and machineries within her area of responsibility. However, in this case, petitioner’s
job description did not include her acting as the custodian of hospital property and equipment.

Hence, she could not be responsible for conducting the annual inventory if there was no standard
laid down by the respondents as the employers. Neither should the blame for failing to secure the
equipment fall upon her if access to the operating room was not under her control, but that of the
management to which security of the premises from unauthorized and undesirable personalities was of
utmost importance. Likewise, the responsibility of taking the lead in investigating the loss could not be
expected from her considering that any actions against the supposed perpetrator should be initiated by the
respondents themselves. Under the circumstances, she could not be validly dismissed on the ground of
gross negligence.
 Lourdes School Quezon City, Inc. v. Garcia
G.R. No. 213128, February 7, 2018
DOCTRINE:
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the
entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort
to avoid them.
FACTS:
Lourdes School Quezon City, Inc. (LSQC) is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, and
private respondent, Luz V. Garcia was its Chief Accountant and Head of the Accounting Office. In
September 2010, LSQC formed two committees to investigate possible irregularities in the purchase of
notebooks and the sale of textbooks in the school.

Garcia was one of the employees subject to the investigations. She was instructed to turn over all
the money and other financial resources of the school, which she immediately complied with.

The investigation found that Garcia was responsible for the oversupply of notebooks and had
neglected her duties as Chief Accountant. The committeea recommended the immediate termination of
Garcia's employment for breach of trust and confidence through gross and habitual neglect of duty,
reasoning that "[it] would be harmful and more damaging for LSQC to wait until further damage or harm
is done especially on the financial aspect of the school due to an imminent malpractice or possible
misrepresentation of school's finances.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not Garcia should be terminated from her employment due to breach of trust and
confidence through gross and habitual neglect of duty.

RULING:
NO. While the court found that Garcia somehow remiss in her duties as Chief Accountant of
LSQC, she was not grossly and habitually negligent in the performance of her duties.

Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the
entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
avoid them.

Her negligence cannot be characterized as gross in character. Notably, she has not committed
prior infractions in her more than two decades of service with LSQC. There is no allegation or proof that
she had been previously subjected to disciplinary proceedings for violation of established school rules and
regulations or found guilty of any misconduct. Also, while there may be some lapses on the way she
handled the status report on the book sale, it does not amount to habitual neglect in the absence of other
similar shortcomings. The lapse or inaction could only be regarded as a single or isolated act of
negligence that cannot be categorized as habitual. In conclusion, Garcia was dismissed on the bases of
petitioner's mere suspicions, surmises, and speculations.