INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC.,v. RANULFO CAMPOREDONDO, G.R. No.

199931, September 07,

2015

As a general concept, poor performance is tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence

in the performance of official duties. An unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal
only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Poor or unsatisfactory performance of
an employee does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties

To ascribe gross neglect, there must be lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence,
or the total absence of care in the performance of duties. In other words, there is gross neglect
when the employee exhibits thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting effort to
avoid them. On the other hand, habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform duties for
a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to perform
duties in a single or isolated instance.

In the case at bar, the dismissal report against the seafarer did not describe the specific
acts that would establish his alleged poor performance, or his want of even slight care in the
performance of his official tasks as chief cook for a certain period of time; hence, even assuming
that seafarer’s performance was unsatisfactory, the company failed to show that his poor
performance amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties.

PLDT vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 9

Accordingly, the following factors should be considered in relation to incompetence:

 the workload of the seafarer should be consistent with the position agreed upon in the
labor contract or with the workload of similar other seafarers;
 the reasons an seafarer is identified as incompetent should be based on his personal
performance, rather than objective factors beyond his control;
 methods for assessing competence must be lawful;
 whether the seafarer is deemed competent or not should be measured against specific
standards, and cannot be judged by qualifications or rank;
 when declaring a seafarer to be incompetent, corresponding evidence should be obtained
in addition to legal and applicable standards.

Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer’s rules, in the actual
imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his
length of service and the number of violations committed during his employ. Where a penalty
less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought
not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment

Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission

[G]ross inefficiency falls within the purview of "other causes analogous to the foregoing," and
constitutes, therefore, just cause to terminate an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
One is analogous to another if it is susceptible of comparison with the latter either in general or
in some specific detail; or has a close relationship with the latter. "Gross inefficiency" is closely
related to "gross neglect," for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee
resulting in damage to the employer or to his business. In Buiser vs. Leogardo, this Court ruled
that failure to observe prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work assignments
due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal.