Photo from Unsplash | Andrew Jephson
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.
The Supreme Court decides: Tardiness for 190 times, and absence from work without leave for a total of 9 and ½ days for a period of less than two years constitute neglect of duty.
(The case of R.B. Michael Press, et.al. v. Nicasio Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008)
AT A GLANCE
- SC decides: Habitual tardiness is a form of neglect of duty. Lack of initiative, diligence, and discipline to come to work on time everyday exhibit the employee’s deportment towards work. Habitual and excessive tardiness is 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. (R.B. Michael Press, et.al. v. Nicasio Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008)
Do habitual tardiness and absenteeism constitute neglect of duty?
The Supreme Court, in the case of R. B. Michael Press, and Annalene Reyes Escobia v. Nicasio Galit (G.R No. 153510, February 13, 2008) held that habitual tardiness is a form of neglect of duty. Lack of initiative, diligence, and discipline to come to work on time everyday exhibit the employee’s deportment towards work. Habitual and excessive tardiness is 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.
From the facts of the case, Nicasio Galit was hired on May 1, 1997 as an offset machine operator at R. B. Michael Press. For the duration of his employment for almost two years, has been found to be tardy for a total of 190 times, or totaling 6,117 minutes, and was absent without leave for a total of nine and a half days.
He was terminated on February 24, 1999 following the issuance of an office memorandum regarding warning for dismissal, and after the conduct of an administrative hearing.
He filed an illegal dismissal case with money claims before the National Labor Relations Commission, where he was ordered to be reinstated, with full backwages and without loss of seniority rights.
When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals found that it was not the tardiness and absences committed by Galit, but his refusal to render overtime work prior the dismissal which prompted the employer’s act of termination of his employment.
Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, R. B. Michael Press brought its appeal to the Supreme Court averring that Galit was dismissed due (1) tardiness constituting neglect of duty, (2) serious misconduct, and (3) insubordination or willful disobedience.
Now, was Galit’s tardiness and absenteeism deemed condoned by R. B. Michael Press?
The Supreme Court held that the management prerogative to discipline employees and impose punishment is a legal right which cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived. To wit:
“In resolving the issue on tardiness, the labor arbiter ruled that petitioners cannot use respondent’s habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences to justify his dismissal since they had already deducted the corresponding amounts from his salary. Furthermore, the labor arbiter explained that since respondent was not subjected to any admonition or penalty for tardiness, petitioners then had condoned the offense or that the infraction is not serious enough to merit any penalty. The CA then supported the labor arbiter’s ruling by ratiocinating that petitioners cannot draw on respondent’s habitual tardiness in order to dismiss him since there is no evidence which shows that he had been warned or reprimanded for his excessive and habitual tardiness.
We find the ruling incorrect.
The mere fact that the numerous infractions of respondent have not been immediately subjected to sanctions cannot be interpreted as condonation of the offenses or waiver of the company to enforce company rules. A waiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal right or privilege. It has been ruled that “a waiver to be valid and effective must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him.” Hence, the management prerogative to discipline employees and impose punishment is a legal right which cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived.” (Emphasis supplied.)
On the allegation that Galit was only terminated since he refused to render overtime work thereby committing insubordination, the Supreme Court further ruled that:
“The fact that respondent refused to provide overtime work despite his knowledge that there is a production deadline that needs to be met, and that without him, the offset machine operator, no further printing can be had, shows his wrongful and perverse mental attitude; thus, there is willfulness.
Respondent’s excuse that he was not feeling well that day is unbelievable and obviously an afterthought. He failed to present any evidence other than his own assertion that he was sick. Also, if it was true that he was then not feeling well, he would have taken the day off, or had gone home earlier, on the contrary, he stayed and continued to work all day, and even tried to go to work the next day, thus belying his excuse, which is, at most, a self-serving statement.
After a re-examination of the facts, we rule that respondent unjustifiably refused to render overtime work despite a valid order to do so. The totality of his offenses against petitioner R.B. Michael Press shows that he was a difficult employee. His refusal to render overtime work was the final straw that broke the camel’s back, and, with his gross and habitual tardiness and absences, would merit dismissal from service.” (Emphasis supplied.)
On a final note, the Supreme Court concluded that Galit’s termination was railroaded in serious breach of his right to due process, ordered R. B. Michael Press to pay Galit nominal damages in the amount of PhP30,000.00.
Form the case of R.B. Michael Press, et.al. v. Nicasio Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008, we can learn that habitual tardiness constitutes neglect of duty since it connotes ack of initiative, diligence, and discipline to come to work on time every day and exhibits the employee’s deportment towards work.
Habitual and excessive tardiness is 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.
Under the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an employment for gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. (Article 297, Labor Code of the Philippines)
In the case of Ricardo Sy, et. al. v. NEAT Inc. (G.R. No. 213748, November 27, 2017), the Supreme Court held that to be terminated due to neglect of duty, such neglect of duty must not only be gross but also habitual. As such:
“As a just cause for termination of employment, on the other hand, the neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well. Gross negligence means an absence of that diligence that a reasonably prudent man would use in his own affairs, and connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties. 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. “ (Emphasis supplied.)
Related article: Habitual Tardiness as a Ground for Dismissal
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.