Tag - gross and habitual neglect of duty

Incompetence as Ground for Dismissal Requires Substantial Evidence

Incompetence or inefficiency as a ground for dismissal contemplates the failure to attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. (Eagle Clarc Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC [G.R. No. 245370, July 13, 2020]) Incompetence or inefficiency belongs to the gross and habitual neglect of duty as ground for dismissal. Article 297 of the Labor Code provides for just causes, to wit: Serious misconduct or willful [...]

Separation Pay Cannot be Awarded to Employee Dismissed for Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty; Other issues on this ground

Gross and habitual neglect of duty is one of the grounds for dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended. In certain termination, employee is entitled to payment of separation pay. This applies to grounds found under Article 298 of the Labor Code such as installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment, and closure. But this does not apply to dismissal due to the fault of the employee like those grounds in Article 297. In one case, in view [...]

Habituality in Gross and Habitual Neglect is Disregarded if Loss is Substantial

That for negligence to be a valid ground, it must be “gross and habitual” is only a general rule. Where damage or loss is substantial, the element of habituality may be disregarded. Thus, in a case where the bank suffered actual loss in the amount of P50,000.00 which is part of the P200,000.00 left by a bank teller fully exposed in her counter on a payday in the presence of depositors milling around, the dismissal of the bank teller [...]

Wrongful Intent is Required for Dismissal Due to Transgression of a Rule or Serious Misconduct

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. For this purpose, the employer must present substantial evidence to prove the legality of the employee’s dismissal. Substantial evidence is defined as “such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.” The Supreme Court, in the [...]

Gross Inefficiency is Akin to Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty

Gross inefficiency is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty59 under Article 297 (e) in relation to Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his business, and constituting, therefore, just cause to dismiss an employee. Gross inefficiency and unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual [...]

AWOL, Constructive Dismissal, and Abandonment

AWOL is one of the common incidents involving an employee for various reasons: He committed an offense and feels so guilty he does not want to show up He got offended by his superior and decided to consult a lawyer He went to the NLRC to file a constructive dismissal case As to numbers 2 and 3, what should the employer do? The best policy of the employer should be to send a Notice to Explain (NTE) with Return to Work directive the [...]

Inability to Stop Over Withdrawals of Company Fund under one’s watch is Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty

Balagtas Credit Cooperative and Community Development, Inc. (BCCCDI) initially hired Emma H. Quiro-quiro (Quiro-quiro) as accountant/bookkeeper in 1989. However, sometime in April 2010, BCCCDI terminated the employment of Quiro-quiro, who was then holding the concurrent posts of General Manager and Accountant, on the grounds of “gross negligence/violation of company rules” and “gross dishonesty.” The charges involve over withdrawal of Time Deposit (TD), Loss of borrower’s title, over computation of interest on TD placements, Unfair filing of delinquent accounts, Concealment of [...]

A Supervisory Employee is still Liable for his Failure to Perform his Duties when Company Property gets Stolen Under his Watch

Angelito Publico was employed to work at Cardinal Santos Memorial Center (CSMC) in 1989, and was the hospital’s Chief of Blood Bank Section, Laboratory Department when he was dismissed from employment by Hospital Managers, Inc. (HMI) in 2008. The dismissal was founded on Publico’s gross and/or habitual negligence, as penalized under the provisions of the HMI’s Code of Discipline for employees, and indicated in an inter-office memo that directed Publico to answer the charges. Prior to Publico’ s dismissal, HMI [...]

error: Content is protected !!