Concepcion, Earl Justin B.

LTL W 3-5

Atty. Duano

Analysis of Termination by Employee: Grave and Habitual Negligence The management prerogative to hire and fire ends where the workers' right to security of tenure and due process begins. While employers have the basic and inherent freedom to discipline employees, and, if warranted, to terminate their employment, no less than the Constitution and the Labor Code have laid down strict rules on the just and authorized causes for exercising such an extreme option, as well as established stringent procedures for the manner of dismissing people. For what is involved in such situations is not just work or occupation, but livelihood, the source of living of the worker involved, and his family.1 According to Art. 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines2 in which the grounds for termination by employer is enumerated. Let us focus on gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. The law is clear and is free from ambiguity. An employer can terminate his employee on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of his duties. However there are decision by the Court which they upheld that gross neglect of duty is sufficient to validly terminate an employee. An example of which is the case of Fuentes v NLRC3 wherein the petitioner is employed as a teller at the Philbanking's office at Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila wherein she received a
1

2013, April 9. Atty. Josephus B Jimenez. Moral Damages in cases of illegal dismissal. ART. 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;
2

(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.

Page | 1

cash deposit of P200,000.00. She counted the money with the assistance of a co-teller and completed the task. When the Chief Teller asked petitioner to validate payroll checks which she found to be incomplete, she left her cubicle twice for such task without keeping the cash on her desk to the drawer. When she came back P50,000.00 cash were missing. It was established that petitioner simply left the pile of money within the easy reach of the crowd milling in front of her cage, instead of putting it in her drawer as required under the private respondent bank's General Memorandum No. 211 (Teller's Manual of Operations) which she was expected to know by heart. It was held that she is gross negligent in her duties. She must realize that the amount of care demanded by reasonable conduct is that proportionate to the apparent risk. Since it was payday and depositors were milling around, petitioner should have been extra cautious. At no time than the occasion under consideration was the need to be extra careful more obvious. It was certainly not the time to breach the standard operating procedure of keeping one's cash in the drawer as a precautionary and security measure. The question is whether mere gross negligence is enough to terminate an employee is rule in affirmative the Court stating that Although petitioner's infraction was not habitual, we took into account the substantial amount lost. Since the deposit slip for P200,000.00 had already been validated prior to the loss, the act of depositing had already been complete and from thereon, the bank had already assumed the deposit as a liability to its depositors. Cash deposits are not assets to banks but are recognized as current liabilities in its balance sheet. Xxx An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person admittedly guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties and whose continuance in his office is patently inimical to the employer's interest. "For the law in protecting the rights of the employee/laborer authorizes neither oppression nor selfdestruction of the employer.

G.R. No. L-75955, October 28, 1998

Page | 2

In the case of Philippine Airlines, Inc (PAL) v NLRC4, the private respondent, Nathaniel Pinuela was ground equipment and tug operator of petitioner Philippine Air Lines (PAL), responsible for towing aircraft from the hangar to the ramp area and vice-versa. Pinuela was assigned as a member of the group tasked to park and position the Boeing 747 aircraft registered as N-745 at the Manila International Airport for a flight to the United States. The group members and their respective assignments were: Pinuela tow tug operator, Rolando Manalaysay leadman and wingtip guide; Rodrigo Camina-headsetman; Arturo Balagat breakman, and a certain Taada guide. The head of the group in charge of the parking/positioning of said aircraft was Nolie Domingo. The aircraft was towed from the PAL technical center to Bay 16 area at the NAIA. While the Boeing 747 was being towed, the airplane collided with the bridge at Bay 16 causing damage to the plane's left landing light and the left wing flop and scratching its No. 2 engine. According to Pinuela, that the normal procedure is for the ground equipment operator to rely on the headsetman or the wing tipguide for guidance and he merely relied on Camina who continued signaling when the accident happened. The Court disaffirms the statement of Pinuela which they said that Such reliance by Pinuela on Camina was unwarranted. Even assuming that Pinuela did not see Manalaysay, his appropriate response should have been to stop towing. According to petitioner's Engineering and Maintenance Manual, "obstructed vision is a signal to stop and get necessary assistance." Xxx Pinuela's act of towing beyond normal speed, his failure to observe proper parking procedure as provided in the Engineering and Maintenance Manual, and the unanimous statement of the members of the towing crew that he completely disregarded their warning shouts indicate that Pinuela is grossly negligent of his responsibilities as a tug operator. Pinuela's dismissal must therefore follow for a company has the right to dismiss its erring employees if only as a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest. Philippine Airlines, as employer, cannot be legally compelled to continue
4

G.R. No. L-82471, February 18, 1991

Page | 3

with the employment of a person admittedly guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. Another case which also involves termination of an employee that is mere gross negligent is the case of Holy Spirit of Quezon City v Taguiam5 involves a teacher of the petitioner school in which was held to be grossly negligent. Taguiam was the class adviser of a Grade 5 class of petitioner school. After obtaining permission from the principal, they were allowed to use the school swimming pool for their year-end activity. With this, respondent Taguiam distributed the parents/guardians permit forms to the students. The permit form of student Chiara Mae was unsigned. But because the mother personally brought her to the school with her packed lunch and swimsuit, Taguiam concluded that the mother allowed her to join. Before the activity started, respondent warned the pupils who did not know how to swim to avoid the deeper area. While Taguiam was away to look for the other pupils, Chiara Mae drowned and was pronounced dead on arrival. The Court held that Taguiam is grossly negligent based on the facts that First, it is undisputed that Chiara Maes permit form was unsign ed. Yet, respondent allowed her to join the activity because she assumed that Chiara Maes mother has allowed her to join it by personally bringing her to the school with her packed lunch and swimsuit. Second, it was respondents responsibility as Class Adviser to supervise her class in all activities sanctioned by the school. Thus, she should have coordinated with the school to ensure that proper safeguards, such as adequate first aid and sufficient adult personnel, were present during their activity. She should have been mindful of the fact that with the number of pupils involved, it would be impossible for her by herself alone to keep an eye on each one of them. The common denominator of the three case is the Courts consideration of resultant damage of each case that even though incidents are not gross and habitual. In the case of PAL v NLRC the resultant damage because of a mere delay on PALs flight schedule due to aircraft damage entails problems like hotel accommodations for its passengers, re-booking, the possibility of law suits, and payment of special landing fees not to mention the soaring costs of replacing aircraft parts. In the case of Fuentes v NLRC the resultant damage was that the deposit slip had already
5

G.R. No. 165565 , July 14, 2008

Page | 4

been validated prior to its loss and the amount reflected thereon is already considered as current liabilities in the banks balance sheet. In the case of Holy Spirit of Quezon City v. Taguiam is the death of the child. To conclude an employer can validly terminate an employee even when he is only gross negligent and not habitual on his duties provided that the resultant damage is substantial that it would impair the present and future business of the employer.

Page | 5