Photo from Unsplash | Andy Beales
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
- Habitual tardiness manifests lack of initiative, diligence and discipline
- Habitual tardiness is a serious offense that may very well constitute gross or habitual neglect of duty
- Habitual tardiness alone is a valid ground for dismissal
Mirror Mirror on the wall, I’ll always get up after I fall. Whether I run, walk or have to crawl, I’ll set my goals and achieve them all. – Unknown
But can you achieve your goal if you have a habit of being tardy and cannot deal with it? In fact, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, it showed one among the negative impacts of habitual tardiness. That is, if you are an employee, habitual tardiness can cost your employment.
For a better understanding, let us take the case of Ricardo G. Sy and Henry B. Alix vs. Neat, Inc., Banana Peel and Paul Vincent Ng, G.R. No. 213748, November 27, 2017.
In this case, Neat, Inc. is the owner/distributor of rubber slippers known as “Banana Peel” with Paul as its President and Chief Executive Officer. On November 30, 2005, Alix was hired as a delivery helper/utility and was dismissed on May 31, 2011.
Recounting how he was dismissed, Alix averred that sometime in February 2011, he was ordered to assist a newly-hired clerk. After helping his co-worker, Alix sat down for a while. The President saw him and thought that he was doing nothing during working hours. On May 19, 2011, Alix was assigned to clean at the company warehouse. After working, the President saw Alix resting again. Alix was suspended for three (3) days, and was eventually dismissed.
The reasons for his termination are as follows:
|
1st warning (issued on July 21, 2008) |
Negligence in performing his work |
|
2nd warning (issued on May 29, 2009) |
Not wearing complete uniform |
|
3rd warning (issued on February 1, 2011) |
Wasting time during working hours |
|
4th warning (issued on February 1, 2011) |
Poor performance evaluation from Production Supervisor |
|
5th warning (issued on May 19, 2011) |
Wasting time during working hours |
|
6th warning (issued on May 20, 2011) |
Tardiness for the month of January, February, March, April 2011 |
|
7th warning (issued on May 30, 2011) |
Poor performance evaluation from operations head |
Clearly, among the reasons for his termination is his habitual tardiness.
An interesting question is, “Is habitual tardiness alone a just cause for termination of Alix’s employment?
The Supreme Court says:
Yes.
Habitual tardiness alone, as correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, is a just cause for termination of Alix’s employment. Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every employee, whether in government of private sector. 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 tat are inimical to the employer’s general productivity and business interest.
Based on the records of his employer, Alix’s daily time card showed that in 2011 alone prior to his dismissal, he was late fourteen (14) times in January, seven (7) times in February, eight (8) times in March, and five (5) times in April.
Thus, having in mind the productivity-related infractions Alix incurred in a span of five (5) months from January to May 2011-consisting of habitual tardiness, two (2) warnings for wasting time during working hours and two (2) more warnings for poor performance evaluation – the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the employer has a valid ground to terminate to Alix’s employment.
Related article: Knowing the Difference Between Retrenchment and Redundancy as Authorized Causes for Dismissal from Employment
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.