Law on Employee's Gross and Habitual Neglect

Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time. The employee’s repeated acts of absences without leave and her frequent tardiness reflect her indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in her work. Her repeated and habitual infractions, committed despite several warnings, constitute gross misconduct. Habitual absenteeism without leave constitute gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee.

Her repeated negligence is not tolerable; neither should it merit the penalty of suspension only. The record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out. An employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty. 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. It is the totality, not the compartmentalization, of such company infractions that she had consistently committed which justified her dismissal. (G.R. No. 165268)
Gross negligence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The employee’s repeated failure to submit his daily coverage reports on time, as well as his failure to submit the doctors' call cards constitute habitual neglect of duties. (G.R. No. 146780)

The act of the master of a fishing vessel in delegating his duties to another then leaving the vessel to seek medical emergency treatment cannot be the gross neglect of duty contemplated by the law to warrant dismissal. And although he had in two previous occasions disembarked from the vessel despite instruction that he should do so only after certain things have been completed, these cannot render the neglect habitual since he had already been adequately penalized for the same. Finally, the master’s service for 24 years makes the penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the offense committed. (G.R. No. 146174)

Abandonment of work, or the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment, may be a just cause for the termination of employment under paragraph (b) of Article 282 of the Labor Code since it is a form of neglect of duty. (G.R. No. 164820)