Poor Performance and Totality of Infractions in Employee Dismissal

The contention that the phrase “poor performance” would mean the same as gross and habitual neglect by an employee of his duties is unavailing. The fact that an employee’s performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties.

Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of case.

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by him should not be taken singly and separately but in their totality. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct, and ability separate and independent of each other.

In the case where the employee committed numerous infractions in his one year and eleven-month stay in the company such as being issued a warning for failing to check the right quantity of materials subject of his inventory, going undertime incurring absence without asking for prior leave, having been warned for failure to implement proper warehousing and housekeeping procedures, failure to ensure sufficient

supplies of oxygen- acetylene gases during business hours, having been warned again for failing to secure prior permission before going on leave and finding by Accounting that he made double and wrong entries in his inventory.

According to the Court, such numerous infractions are sufficient to hold him grossly and habitually negligent. His repeated negligence is not tolerable. The totality of infractions or the number of violations he committed during his employment merits his dismissal. Moreover, gross and habitual negligence includes unauthorized absences and tardiness, as well as gross inefficiency, negligence and carelessness.

Invoking Valiao v. Court of Appeals, the Court said that “fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct, and ability separate and independent of each other.”

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements