Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company

    Uploaded by

    hehe kurimao
    The document summarizes a labor case involving Arsenio Quiambao, who was dismissed from his job as a branch teller at Manila Electric Company due to excessive unauthorized absences. Quiambao's employment records showed poor performance ratings from 1995 to 1999 and notices of investigation and dismissal due to absences in 1999-2000 without authorization or excuse. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all agreed that Quiambao's repeated unexcused absences constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty, which merited dismissal under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this was a case of serious misconduct due to the frequency and willful nature of the violations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company

    Uploaded by

    hehe kurimao
    35 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a labor case involving Arsenio Quiambao, who was dismissed from his job as a branch teller at Manila Electric Company due to excessive unauthorized absences. Quiambao's employment records showed poor performance ratings from 1995 to 1999 and notices of investigation and dismissal due to absences in 1999-2000 without authorization or excuse. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all agreed that Quiambao's repeated unexcused absences constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty, which merited dismissal under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this was a case of serious misconduct due to the frequency and willful nature of the violations.

    Original Description:

    ARS

    Original Title

    45. Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a labor case involving Arsenio Quiambao, who was dismissed from his job as a branch teller at Manila Electric Company due to excessive unauthorized absences. Quiambao's employment records showed poor performance ratings from 1995 to 1999 and notices of investigation and dismissal due to absences in 1999-2000 without authorization or excuse. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all agreed that Quiambao's repeated unexcused absences constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty, which merited dismissal under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this was a case of serious misconduct due to the frequency and willful nature of the violations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views2 pages

    Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company

    Uploaded by

    hehe kurimao
    The document summarizes a labor case involving Arsenio Quiambao, who was dismissed from his job as a branch teller at Manila Electric Company due to excessive unauthorized absences. Quiambao's employment records showed poor performance ratings from 1995 to 1999 and notices of investigation and dismissal due to absences in 1999-2000 without authorization or excuse. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all agreed that Quiambao's repeated unexcused absences constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty, which merited dismissal under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this was a case of serious misconduct due to the frequency and willful nature of the violations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    171023               December 18, 2009

    ARSENIO S. QUIAMBAO, Petitioner,


    vs.
    MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.

    FACTS:

    On July 16, 1986, Quiambao was employed as branch teller by respondent Manila Electric Company. He
    was assigned at respondent’s Mandaluyong office and was responsible for the handling and processing of
    payments made by respondent’s customers.

    It appears from his employment records, however, that petitioner has repeatedly violated the Company
    Code of Employee Discipline and has exhibited poor performance in the latter part of his employment.
    Thus:

    His merit ratings from 1995 to 1999 are as follows:

    YEAR RATING
    1999 Poor
    1998 Needs Improvement
    1997 Needs Improvement
    1996 Satisfactory
    1995 Satisfactory

    On March 10, 2000, a Notice of Investigation was served upon petitioner for his unauthorized and
    unexcused absences on November 10, 25, 26, 29, 1999; December 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 2000;
    and from February 17, 2000 up to the date of such notification letter. Petitioner was likewise required to
    appear at the investigation and to present his evidence in support of his defense. However, despite receipt
    of such notice, petitioner did not participate in the investigation. The legal department recommended
    petitioner’s dismissal from employment due to excessive, unauthorized, and unexcused absences, which
    constitute (i) abandonment of work under the provisions of the Company Code of Employee Discipline (ii)
    and gross and habitual neglect of duty under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Through a
    Notice of Dismissal dated March 28, 2000, petitioner’s employment was terminated effective March 29,
    2000.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the unauthorized and unexcused absences of Mr. Quiambao constitutes valid ground for his
    dismissal
    RULING:

    The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are one in holding that petitioner’s unauthorized absences and repeated
    infractions of company rules on employee discipline manifest gross and habitual neglect of duty that
    merited the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal from work. The only difference in their ruling is
    that the NLRC awarded separation pay. The CA, after reviewing the records of the case, affirmed the
    findings of the labor tribunals. And, on the basis of these findings, further concluded that petitioner’s
    infractions are worse than inefficiency; they border on dishonesty constituting serious misconduct.

    We have examined the records which indeed show that petitioner’s unauthorized absences as well as
    tardiness are habitual despite having been penalized for past infractions. In Gustilo v. Wyeth Philippines,
    Inc., we held that a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct. We also
    held that gross neglect of duty becomes serious in character due to frequency of instances. Serious
    misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
    dereliction of duty, willful in character, and indicative of wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.
    Oddly, petitioner never advanced any valid reason to justify his absences. Petitioner’s intentional and
    willful violation of company rules shows his utter disregard of his work and his employer’s interest.
    Indeed, there can be no good faith in intentionally and habitually incurring unexcusable absences. Thus, the
    CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in equating
    petitioner’s gross neglect of duty to serious misconduct

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy