Facts
Lingganay was hired by the respondents as a bus driver sometime in 2013. In October 2013, he figured in an accident while driving the company bus along Maharlika Hi-way in Brgy. Concepcion, Quezon Province.
On 30 December 2016, Lingganay was involved in another accident—this time, with a motorcycle. On 01 May 2017, Lingganay again figured in an accident as he crashed into the rear portion of a Toyota Wigo while driving the company bus along the San Juanico Bridge, Samar.
On 29 May 2017, respondents decided to terminate Lingganay from Employment for transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety, i.e. “Violation 8.1.4 – Any form of laxity, reckless driving, and gross negligence, resulting to damages to property, injuries, death, and other casualties.”
This prompted Lingganay to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondents and dismissed Lingganay’s complaint, which the NLRC affirmed.
The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with the labor tribunals that Lingganay was validly dismissed as he repeatedly violated the Health and Safety Rules of the Company, and also on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of duties in accordance with Art. 282 of the Labor Code.
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, since his past mishaps were merely minor.
Hence, this present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue
Whether or not Lingganay was validly dismissed from employment.
Ruling
YES. The Supreme Court (SC) held 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 Art. 297(b) of the Labor Code.
Furthermore, the SC declared that even assuming arguendo that the employee’s gross negligence was not habitual, the element of habituality may be dispensed with in instances when the recklessness caused substantial damage or loss to the employer.
Here, the infraction of Lingganay when he crashed into the Toyota Wigo caused substantial damage to the car in the amount of Php99,000.00 and to the company bus amounting to Ph6,500. Respondents were compelled to pay the full amount of Php99,000 just to avoid any possible legal suit against the company. This damage was so substantial that respondents cannot be legally compelled to continue his employment.
