Photo from Pexels | limoo
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In Lingganay v. Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company, G.R. No. 254976, August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a bus driver involved in multiple road accidents is valid for transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety and for his gross and habitual neglect of his duties under Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code.
Lingganay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company and Morales.
Lingganay alleged that respondents hired him as a bus driver. While driving the company bus along Maharlika Highway in Quezon, he figured in an accident involving one Isidro Alvarez. The respondents settled the matter with Alvarez.
When his employment contract ended, he continued to work as a yardman for the respondents. Respondents rehired him as a bus driver, and assigned him at the motor pool division of the company in Cubao. Subsequently, he was transferred to Lucena Line of DLTB Co.
Respondents suspended him for 5 days for failure to “take time schedule.” Lingganay was suspended again for 10 days for being involved in an accident with a motorcycle.
Lingganay again figured in an accident as he crashed into the rear portion of a car along San Juanico Bridge. Respondents issued a Memorandum giving him 5 days to explain his side and placing him under preventive suspension. He submitted a handwritten Salaysay and attended the administrative hearing/investigation of the case.
Respondents terminated Lingganay from employment for transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety, which prompted the latter to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims.
Respondents averred that Lingganay was dismissed for habitually transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety.
The Supreme Court held that Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code provides, among others, that an employer may terminate an employment for gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. It covers carelessness and even inefficiency of employees in the performance of their tasks. The negligence must not only be gross but also habitual.
Records show that respondents validly terminated Lingganay from employment for transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety and for his gross and habitual neglect of his duties under Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code.
The past infractions of Lingganay not only repeatedly endangered the properties, safety, or lives of his passengers, the pedestrians, and the riding public; they likewise exposed respondents to various liabilities.
Lingganay insists that even if he was indeed negligent in the performance of his tasks, it was not shown that his negligence was both gross and habitual.
Even assuming that Lingganay’s gross negligence was not habitual, the damage and loss caused by his last infraction to the company was so substantial that respondents indeed cannot be legally compelled to continue his employment. Hence, he was validly dismissed.
Related Articles:
- Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties
- SC decides: Habitual tardiness and absenteeism constitute neglect of duty
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
