This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Misconduct is defined as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment."[33] For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must be serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer."[34] | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To warrant removal from service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual.[31] Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[32] Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[33] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Of course, ordinary misconduct would not justify the termination of the services of an employee. The law is explicit that the misconduct should be serious. It is settled that in order for misconduct to be serious, "it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant."[50] As amplified by jurisprudence, the misconduct must (1) be serious; (2) relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (3) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[51] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[31] Though there may have been times when private respondent's absences were undertaken without the necessary approved leave applications, nevertheless, she would send word for when these would occur. Moreover, quite telling is the fact that nowhere in the memoranda sent to private respondent was there any mention of a complaint relating to the quality of her work. As the present case does not show the presence of one of the two requisites to make the finding of negligence a just cause for dismissal. At the most, private respondent should have been further suspended from service for taking for granted that her leave would be approved by the personnel department of petitioner corporation. The penalty of dismissal is too harsh, considering that private respondent had been with the company for five years and, apparently, the management had no complaint as regards the former's quality of work. | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation.[20] Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[21] Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer's business.[22] | |||||