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 is a form of neglect of duty.
- An employer may terminate an employment for gross and habitual neglect of duty.
- As a just cause for termination of employment, the neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well.
An employee’s tardiness and absenteeism adversely affect the business of the employer. As such, when the tardiness or absenteeism becomes frequent amounting to gross and habitual neglect of duty, it may be a valid ground for termination of employment.
Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines states that an employer may terminate an employment for gross and habitual neglect of duty.
The law says:
“ART. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Jurisprudence says:
“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. To warrant removal from service, however, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual.” (Acebedo Optical v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 150171, July 17, 2007)
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.)
In the case of R. B. Michael Press v. Nicasio Galit (G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled 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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Related article: SC decides: Habitual tardiness and absenteeism constitute neglect of duty
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.