CAVITE APPAREL, INCORPORATED vs.

MICHELLE MARQUEZ (GROSS AND HABITUAL

NEGLECT OF DUTIES)
G.R. No. 172044, 06 February 2013

FACTS: Michelle Marquez was hired as a regular employee in the Finishing Department of Cavite
Apparel. She committed 4 absences without filing for leave of absence. When she reported back
to work, she submitted the necessary medical certificates. Nonetheless, Cavite Apparel suspended
Michelle for 6 days. When Michelle returned, Cavite Apparel terminated her employment for
habitual absenteeism.

ISSUE Whether or not a spread out four absences without leave constitutes gross and habitual
neglect and therefore a just cause for dismissal.

LAW: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 OF 1974, as amended and renumbered

ART. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. An employer may terminate an

employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

CASE HISTORY:

 LA dismissed Marquez’ complaint noting punctuality and good attendance as a

requirement for her job which she failed to render.
 NLRC ruled in favour of Michelle. Reversing the LA.
 CA denied appeal of Cavite Apparel.

RULING: No. Michelle’s four absences were not habitual; “totality of infractions” doctrine not
applicable.

Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, must be both
gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of one’s duties.
Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending
on the circumstances. Four absences in her six years of service cannot be considered gross and
habitual neglect of duty, especially so since the absences were spread out over a six-month
period. Michelle’s penalty of dismissal too harsh or not proportionate to the infractions she
commited. Although Michelle was fully aware of the company rules regarding leaves of absence,
and her dismissal might have been in accordance with the rules, it is well to stress that the
Supreme Court is not bound by such rules. While management’s prerogative is recognized to
discipline its employees, the exercise of this prerogative should at all times be reasonable and
should be tempered with compassion and understanding.

OPINION: I concur with the final decision for the SC to rule in favour of the employee - Marquez.
Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be imposed on any employee. Where a penalty less
punitive may suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with
a consequence so severe for what is at stake is not merely the employee’s position but her very
livelihood and perhaps the life and subsistence of her family. Most of the time, companies clothe
their desire to terminate an employee with just cause by imputing allegations for the employee’s
alleged misconduct. The court was correct in upholding the worker’s right of seeking
reinstatement and backwages for the damages brought to her, and her family of the dismissal.