[The case of Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Michelle Marquez (G.R. No. 172044, February 6, 2013)]
Photo from Unsplash | charlesdeluvio
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under the Labor Code, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances.
(Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Michelle Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, February 06, 2013)
For gross and habitual neglect of duties to be a valid ground for termination, the following must be present:
1. There must be neglect of duty; and
2. The negligence must be both gross and habitual in character.
(Section 5.2, par. c, DOLE DO 147-15)
The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for gross and habitual neglect by the employees of his duties, among others. (Article 297, Labor Code)
The Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations of Book IV of the Labor Code or DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 (DOLE DO 147-15) defines the term gross neglect as the absence of that diligence that an ordinary prudent man would use in his/her own affairs. (Section 4, par. j, DOLE DO 147-15)
On the other hand, habitual neglect refers to the repeated failure to perform one’s duties over a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. (Section 4, par. k, DOLE DO 147-15)
In the case of Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Michelle Marquez (G.R. No. 172044, February 06, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that four absences, when not habitual, does not constitute gross and habitual neglect of duties.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Michelle Marquez is a regular employee of Cavite Apparel. Prior to her dismissal on June 08, 2000, Michell committed the following infractions:
- First Offense: Absence without leave (AWOL) on December 6, 1999 – written warning
- Second Offense: AWOL on January 12, 2000 – stern warning with three (3) days suspension
- Third Offense: AWOL on April 27, 2000 – suspension for six (6) days.
On May 08, 2000, Michelle got sick and did not report for work. She submitted a medical certificate upon her return but Cavite Apparel denies receipt thereof. Michelle did not report for work on May 15-27, 2000 due to an illness. When she reported back for work, she submitted her medical certificate. Cavite Apparel nonetheless suspended her for six (6) days, on June 1-7, 2000. When she returned on June 08, 2000, Cavite Apparel terminated her employment for habitual absenteeism.
She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which the Labor Arbiter dismissed. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter ruling that considering Michelle’s six years in service, Cavite Apparel cannot impose the penalty of dismissal for her past absences when she had already been penalized by a written warning and a six-day suspension.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that while it agreed that habitual absenteeism without official leave, in violation of company rules, is sufficient reason to dismiss an employee, it nevertheless did not consider Michelle’s four absences as habitual.
The issue in this case is whether or not Michelle was illegally dismissed due to her habitual absenteeism.
The Supreme Court ruled that Michelle’s four absences were not habitual. According to the Supreme Court:
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances. Under these standards and the circumstances obtaining in the case, we agree with the CA that Michelle is not guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties.
Michelle might have been guilty of violating company rules on leaves of absence and employee discipline, still we find the penalty of dismissal imposed on her unjustified under the circumstances. As earlier mentioned, Michelle had been in Cavite Apparel’s employ for six years, with no derogatory record other than the four absences without official leave in question, not to mention that she had already been penalized for the first three absences, the most serious penalty being a six-day suspension for her third absence on April 27, 2000.
While previous infractions may be used to support an employee’s dismissal from work in connection with a subsequent similar offense, we cautioned employers in an earlier case that although they enjoy a wide latitude of discretion in the formulation of work-related policies, rules and regulations, their directives and the implementation of their policies must be fair and reasonable; at the very least, penalties must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.
Michelle’s dismissal is not commensurate to the four absences she incurred for her six years of service with the company. The reason for her absence on May 8, 2000 – due to illness and not for her personal convenience – all the more rendered her dismissal unreasonable as it is clearly disproportionate to the infraction she committed.
It must be noted that an isolated incident of negligence is not sufficient as a just cause for dismissal. The penalty of dismissal is too harsh for a single act of negligence, to which a lesser penalty, such as a written reprimand or suspension without pay, would suffice.
As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of International School of Manila v. Santos (G.R. No. 167286, February 05, 2014), in dismissing an employee for gross and habitual neglect of duties, the negligence should not merely be gross, it should also be habitual.
Related Article/s
Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties
What are the Procedural Requirements in Dismissing an Employee Based on Just Causes?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.