Insubordination or willful disobedience requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a “wrongful and perverse attitude”; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

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 employee should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other.

While it may be true that an employee may have been penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the

record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee’s past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty.

Despite the sanctions imposed upon an employee, he may have continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection.

To be sure, the totality of an employee’s infractions is considered and weighed in determining the imposable sanction for the current infraction. It presupposes that the employee is already found guilty of the new violation, as in this case.

Apropos, it is also worth mentioning that when the employer had already previously warned an employee that the penalty for his next infraction would be elevated to dismissal and he committed the same violation, he may be dismissed from service. Thus, the dismissal of employee in this case, on the basis of the principle of totality of infractions, may be justified. (Villanueva vs. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., G.R. No. 227175, January 08, 2020)

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

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