Alvarez vs Golden Tri bloc

G.R. No. 202158: September 25, 2013

In the case of Alvarez vs Golden Tri bloc, petitioner was an outlet supervisor assigned to
3 Dunkin Donuts. The petitioner then reported but forgot his timecard at another branch. He
then called another employee to punch in his time card for him to reflect that he is already on
duty. Both of them were then suspended. The LA found that they were illegally dismissed but the
NLRC reversed the decision, submitting the infractions committed by the petitioner, such as
tardiness, negligence resulting in disruption of business operations, product shortages and
inconsistencies in his inventory and dishonesty for causing a co-employee to punch-in his
timecard.

The court then ruled that the NLRC and the CA were correct in applying the totality
of infractions rule and in adjudging that the petitioner's dismissal was grounded on a just and
valid cause. The standards of procedural due process were likewise observed in effecting the
petitioner's dismissal.

As provided in the case of Merin v. MRC, G.R. No. 171790, October 17, 2008, 569
SCRA 576. “The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period
of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring
employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately.
Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of
aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may
be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not
mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record
of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out
since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in
determining the proper imposable penalty. Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he
continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior onboard. Indeed, the
employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts
inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-
protection.”
Cebu People’s Multipurpose Cooperative (CPMC) vs Carbonilla
G.R. No. 212070, January 20, 2016

CPMC hired Carbonilla Jr. as a Credit and Collection Manager and as such, was tasked with
the handling of the credit and collection activities of the cooperative, which included
recommending loan approvals, formulating and implementing credit and collection policies and
conducting trainings. CPMC then underwent a reorganization where Carbonilla was assigned to
perform the duties of Human Resources Department. Subsequently, CPMC asked Carbonilla to
explain the various infractions he allegedly committed, such as non-attendance to a meeting,
non-submission of summary reports, gross disrespect and insubordination, gross misconduct,
falsification and committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the cooperative.

The court ruled that the totality and gravity of Carbonilla, Jr.'s infractions throughout
the course of his employment completely justified CPMPC's decision to finally terminate his
employment

As provided in the case of Realda v. New Age Graphics, Inc., The totality of infractions or
the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in
determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by
petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot
be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability
separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for
his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would
be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant
consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past
misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable
penalty[.] Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct
and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to
retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests.
Challenge socks Corp v CA (NLRC, ANTONIO ET AL)
G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2005

FACTS
CHALLENGE SOCKS CORP (CSC) hired Elvie Buguat as knitting operator. In the course of
her employment, she incurred absences and tardiness without prior approval and had been
neglectful of her duties. On May 25, 1998: she failed to check the socks she was working on
causing excess use of yarn and damage to the socks’ design. She was suspended for 5 days and
warned that a repetition of the same act would mean dismissal from the service. February 2,
1999: she committed the same infraction and was given a warning. Despite the previous
warnings, Buguat continued to be habitually absent and inattentive to her task. On March 1,
1999: she again failed to properly count the bundle of socks assigned to her. On March 2, 1999:
CSC terminated her services on grounds of habitual absenteeism without prior leave, tardiness
and neglect of work. Thereafter, Buguat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.[8]

LA: Buguat was illegally dismissed; ordered CSC to reinstate her without loss of seniority rights
and benefits, but w/o backwages; ruled that mistake in counting bundles of socks is tolerable and
should be punished by suspension only.

NLRC: adopted the findings of LA. Denied CSC's Appeal and MR.

CA: reversed and set aside LA’s and NLRC’s decisions; CSC was ordered to pay BUGUAT full
backwages; remanded to the Regional LA for the computation of the backwages. CA also noted
that petitioner failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement in terminating an employee
hence, the dismissal was considered ineffectual.

ISSUE
WON Buguat’s termination is valid

HELD
YES, one of the just causes for terminating an employment under Article 282 of the Labor
Code is gross and habitual neglect by the employee of her duties. This cause includes gross
inefficiency, negligence and carelessness. Such just causes is derived from the right of the
employer to select and engage his employees. As a knitting operator, Elvie was required to check
the socks she was working on and to count the bundles of socks she had to pack to be forwarded
to the Looping Section. Her repeated commission of the same offense could be considered willful
disobedience. Elvie, despite the suspension and warning, continued to disregard the company
rules and regulations.

Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of
time. Buguat’s repeated acts of absences without leave and her frequent tardiness reflect her
indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in her work. Her repeated and habitual infractions,
committed despite several warnings, constitute gross misconduct. Habitual absenteeism
without leave constitute gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee.
Her repeated negligence is not tolerable; neither should it merit the penalty of suspension
only. The record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that
should be meted out.

An employee’s past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in

determining the proper imposable penalty. The totality of infractions or the number of violations
committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to
be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by him should not be taken singly
and separately but in their totality. Fitness for continued employment cannot be
compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct, and ability separate
and independent of each other. It is the totality, not the compartmentalization, of such company
infractions that Buguat had consistently committed which justified her dismissal.

Terminating an employment is one of petitioner’s prerogatives. Management has the

prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers
pursuant to company rules and regulations. The Court has upheld a company’s management
prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under
special laws or under valid agreements.

In the case at bar, petitioner exercised in good faith its management prerogative as there
is no dispute that Buguat had been habitually absent, tardy and neglectful of her work, to the
damage and prejudice of the company. Her dismissal was therefore proper. The law imposes
many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, observance
of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the
other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only
good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The
employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the
service will patently be inimical to his interests. The employer has the burden of proving that the
dismissed worker has been served two notices:
(1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought,
(2) the other to inform him of his employer’s decision to dismiss him.
A review of the records shows that private respondent was served a written termination notice
on the very day she was actually dismissed from the service. It was not shown that CSC notified
Elvie in advance of the charge or charges against her nor was she given an opportunity to refute
the charges made against her.

Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission: Upheld as valid the dismissal for just
cause even if there was no compliance with the requirements of procedural due process. While
the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the
employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due
process.
Yellow Bus Line Employees Union (YBLEU) vs Yellow Bus Line (YBLI)
G.R. No. 190876, June 15, 2016

FACTS
Gardonia and Querol were hired by YBL as drivers of Yellow Bus Line. Gardonia was driving along
the National Highway in Polomok, South Cotabato when his bus bumped into a motorcycle while
trying to overtake it. The collision caused the death of the motorcycle driver and his passenger.

3 months later, the bus that Querol was driving suffered a mechanical breakdown. A mechanis
and a towing truck arrived to pick up Querol. He was ordered by the mechanic to drive the bus
while the towing truck trail behind. Querol was apparently driving too fast and he rammed the
bus into a sugar plantation in South Cotabato. YBL conducted a hearing and found Gardonia and
Querol to be negligent.

YBLEU, representing its members filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Panel of
Accredited Voluntary Arbitrators. YBL then filed a motion for reconsideration before the CA and
was given due course, which ruled in favor of YBL. First, the Court of Appeals held that Article 227
of the Labor Code is not applicable in this case. Instead, the case falls under Articles 260, 261,
262-A and 262-B because it involves the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. Second,
the Court of Appeals found that no compromise settlement was actually reached because a
second round of conference had to be conducted in the NCMB office. Third, Norlan Yap, the
representative of YBL, had no authority to enter into a compromise. Fourth, the Court of Appeals
reversed the findings of the Panel with respect to the cause of the drivers' dismissal.

ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal of Gardonia and Querol was valid

HELD
Both Gardonia and Querol were dismissed for just cause. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides

Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:

1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders

of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

2. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

3. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative;

4. 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
Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that one of the just causes for terminating an employment
is the employee's gross and habitual neglect of his duties. This cause includes gross inefficiency,
negligence and carelessness. Gross negligence connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise
slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

In the case of Gardonia, he admitted that he was overtaking the motorcycle on its left when said
motorcycle suddenly negotiated a left turn on the intersection causing the bus to hit the
motorcycle. Gardonia claimed that he blew his horn when he tried to overtake the said
motorcycle. Before hitting the motorcycle, Gardonia stated that he tried to apply the brakes and
swerved the steering wheel to the left, but it was too late. On the other hand, the bus conductor,
who was traveling with Gardonia, insisted that the motorcyle was running slowly and was about
to go to the left side of the road near the intersection when it was hit by the bus. The bus
conductor established the fault of Gardonia. Gardonia already saw that the motorcycle was
swerving to the left. Both the bus, with the motorcycle ahead, were nearing an intersection. It is
evidently wrong for Gardonia to proceed in the attempt to overtake the motorcycle

In the case of Querol, he was driving recklessly despite the fact that said bus was newly repaired.
YBL also conducted its ocular inspection of the area and found that there was no road crossing
at the scene of the incident which contradicts Querol's statement that a bicycle suddenly crossed
the highway. Moreover, it was revealed that the bus was found in the sugar plantation at a
distance of 60 meters from the highway. This proved that the bus was running very fast. The
accident is evidently caused by Querol.

Indeed, Gardonia and Querol were both negligent in operating the bus causing death and
damages to property.