TOPIC: GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTY (ART.
282[B])
CASE TITLE: MANSION PRINTING and CHENG VS. BITARA
G.R. No. 168120 ; January 25, 2012
FACTS: Mansion Printing Center is a single proprietorship engaged in the printing of quality
self-adhesive labels, brochures, posters, stickers, packaging and the like.Mansion engaged the
services of Bitara as a helper (kargador). Respondent was later promoted as the companys sole
driver tasked , among others, to deliver the products to the clients within the delivery
schedules.Petitioners aver that the timely delivery of the products to the clients is one of the
foremost considerations material to the operation of the business. It being so, they closely
monitored the attendance of respondent. They noted his habitual tardiness and absenteeism.
Petitioners issued a Memorandum requiring respondent to submit a written explanation why no
administrative sanction should be imposed on him for his habitual tardiness, to which he replied.
But despite respondents undertaking to report on time, however, he continued to disregard
attendance policies. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioners
before the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Was there gross and habitual neglect of duty on the part of Bitara, warranting his
dismissal from service
HELD: YES; there is no illegal dismissal
ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
xxx
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
xxx
Bitaras weekly time record for the first quarter of the year 2000 revealed that he came late 19
times out of the 47 times he reported for work. He also incurred 19 absences out of the 66
working days during the quarter. His absences without prior notice and approval from March 11-
16, 2000 were considered to be the most serious infraction of all because of its adverse effect on
business operations.
Clearly, even in the absence of a written company rule defining gross and habitual neglect of
duties, respondents omissions qualify as such warranting his dismissal from the service.