MEMORANDUM

TO: ATTY. ALLAN ALCANTARA

FROM: ALFONSO DIMLA

SUBJECT: RESEARCH ON GROSS ABSENCES AS GROUND

FOR TERMINATION

DATE: 9 JULY 2019

A. Neglect Of Duty, Kinds

1. Habitual tardiness and absenteeism

2. Abandonment:
a. Failure to report for work or absence without justifiable reason
b. Clear intention to sever Employer- Employee relationship manifested by some
overt acts.1

NOTE: In case of abandonment the ER is still required under the law to notify the
employee of his termination. There is still a need to observe the two-notice rule and
opportunity to be heard requirement.2

B. Gross Negligence, Defined

This is the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care of diligence, or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any
effort to avoid them. An example of gross and habitual neglect of duties is Habitual
Absenteeism.

C. Habitual Absenteeism as a Valid Ground for Dismissal

It is the repeated and habitual infractions of an employee in failing to be present and

available for his employer without a valid or justifiable reason. Habitual absenteeism,
without leave constitutes gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an
employee.3 This is borne from the fact that serious irregularities when put together may
constitute serious misconduct that is detrimental to the workload and resources of the
company.
It has been held that gross neglect duty becomes serious in character depending on the
frequency of instances. Bad faith is present in intentional and habitual unexcused absences. 4

1
Labor et. al v. NLRC, GR No. 110388, September 14, 1995
2
New Puerto Commercial v Lopez, G.R. NO. 169999, July 26, 2010
3
Challenge Socks Corporation v. CA, 2005
4
Quiambao v. Manila Electric Co., 2009
8th Floor, Citibank Center, 8741 Paseo de Roxas,
Makati City 1226, Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel No. +63 2 891 1881 +63 2 507 4496 |
Fax No. +63 2 891 1889 | Mobile No. +63 917 676 0284
www.tradelawyers.ph | AAALaw@tradelawyers.ph
Things to consider before declaring dismissal:
A. First step is to ensure that you are consistently enforcing your internal policies.
That means, chasing up doctor’s certificates and if necessary, warning employees
that a consistent breach of the absentee policy could result in disciplinary action,
including termination of employment.
B. Second step is to provide employee with proper notice to respond. Due process is
always important in labor cases.

D. RELEVANT LAW: CIRCULAR NO. 1-91

"A. Habitual Absenteeism:

 "[1] An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent
if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave
credits under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least
three (3) consecutive months during the year;

 "[2] In case of claims of ill health, heads of departments or agencies are encouraged
to verify the validity of such claim and, if not satisfied with the reason given, should
disapprove the application for sick leave. On the other hand, cases of employees who
absent themselves from work before approval of their application should be
disapproved outright; and

 "[3] In the discretion of the head of any department, agency or office, any
government physician may be authorized to do a spot check on employees who are
supposed to be on sick leave. Those found violating the leave laws, rules or
regulations shall be dealt with accordingly by filing appropriate administrative cases
against them.

B. Habitual Tardiness:

 "Any employees shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness,

regardless of the number of minutes, ten [10] times a month for at least two (2)
months in a semester or at least (2) consecutive months during the year.

C. Sanctions:

 "[1] The following sanctions shall be imposed for violation of the above guidelines:

o "(a) For the first violation, the employee, after due proceedings, shall be
meted the penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year suspension without pay.

o "(b) For the second violation, and after due proceedings, he shall be
dismissed from service.

 Reports on punctuality and attendance of all employees should be submitted to the

Personnel Office or Administrative Officer of every department or agency not later
than two [2] weeks after the end of every semester (June and December).

Jurisprudence on Absenteeism and Tardiness

www.tradelawyers.ph | AAALaw@tradelawyers.ph
VIRGEL DAVE JAPOS v. (FARM COOP) and/or CRISLINO BAGARES, G.R. No.
208000 July 26, 2017

 Corollarily, under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, gross and habitual neglect of
duty by the employee of his duties is a just cause for the termination of the latter's
employment. Settled is the rule that an employee's habitual absenteeism without
leave, which violated company rules and regulation, is sufficient to justify
termination from the service. In the case of R.B. Michael Press vs. Galit, it was ruled
that habitual tardiness and/or absenteeism is a form of neglect of duty as the same
exhibit the employee's deportment towards work and is therefore inimical to the
general productivity and business of the employer.

 This is especially true when the tardiness and/or absenteeism occurred frequently
and repeatedly within an extensive period of time. In the instant case, Japos failed to
refute and controvert the fact of his habitual absenteeism. Instead, he admitted his
absences though he tried to justify the same by belatedly submitting a medical
certificate. Unfortunately, said medical certificate did not help his case.

MANSION PRINTING CENTER v. DIOSDADO BITARA, JR, G.R. No. 168120

January 25, 2012

 In the present case, however, petitioners have repeatedly called the attention of
respondent concerning his habitual tardiness. The Memorandum dated 23 June
1999 of petitioner Cheng required him to explain his tardiness. Also in connection
with a similar infraction, respondent even wrote petitioner Cheng a letter dated 29
November 1999 where he admitted that his tardiness has affected the delivery
schedules of the company, offered an apology, and undertook to henceforth report
for duty on time. Despite this undertaking, he continued to either absent himself
from work or report late during the first quarter of 2000.

RENE P. VALIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 146621 July 30, 2004

 Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. The Labor Arbiter’s findings that petitioner’s
habitual absenteeism and tardiness constitute gross and habitual neglect of duties
that justified his termination of employment are sufficiently supported by evidence
on record. Petitioner’s repeated acts of absences without leave and his frequent
tardiness reflect his indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in his work. More
importantly, his repeated and habitual infractions, committed despite several
warnings, constitute gross misconduct unexpected from an employee of petitioner’s
stature. This Court has held that habitual absenteeism without leave constitute
gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee.

TABACALERA INSURANCE CO. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 72555 July 31, 1987

 Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the employee's misconduct. It is enough that there be "some basis" for such
loss of confidence or that "the employer has reasonable grounds to believe, if not to
entertain the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible for the

www.tradelawyers.ph | AAALaw@tradelawyers.ph
 misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position"

PALAPAG v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96646, 8 February 1993

 It bears stressing that petitioner’s absences and tardiness were not isolated incidents
but manifested a pattern of habituality. In one case, we held that where the records
clearly show that the employee has not only been charged with the offense of
highgrading but also has been warned 21 times for absences without official leave,
these repeated acts of misconduct and willful breach of trust by an employee justify
his dismissal and forfeiture of his right to security of tenure.

ROWENA A. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. INTEGRATED PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

AND KATHERYN TANTIANSU

 These pieces of documentary evidence already constitute substantial evidence (or

that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion) proving petitioner's habitual tardiness. Her tardiness is so
excessive that it already affects the general productivity and business of Integrated
Pharma. It has amounted to gross and habitual neglect of her duty, which is a just
cause for terminating employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

Re: Habitual Tardiness of JULIE M. MAYCACAYAN, Regional Trial Court, A.M.

NO. P-04-1847 : August 27, 2004

 Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 describes habitual
tardiness as follows:

o Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness,

regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two
(2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the
year.

 In 2003, Maycacayan had been late more than ten times for the consecutive months
of August and September. The explanation submitted by Maycacayan that her
tardiness is mainly due to her household chores and heavy traffic is not tenable.
Moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health,
domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual
tardiness.4 Clearly, she is guilty of habitual tardiness.

www.tradelawyers.ph | AAALaw@tradelawyers.ph