Dear PAO,

One of our bus drivers has been very negligent. He had previous vehicular accidents that resulted in minor damages to other motorists and injuries to pedestrians. Lately, we were forced to settle with another car owner after our bus, driven by the same driver, collided with his car, resulting in major damage. Our internal investigation revealed that our driver was indeed negligent. Our driver, however, explained that he could not be dismissed because, although he could be grossly negligent in that particular incident, his negligence was not habitual. Is he correct?

Marlon

Dear Marlon,

An employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee who was found guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties, especially when the employee’s continued employment is inimical to the employer’s interest. This is the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of LBC Express v. Mateo, GR 168215, June 9, 2009, penned by then Associate Justice Renato Corona, which was reiterated in its latest decision in the case of Marcelino Lingganay v. Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company, GR 254976, Aug. 20, 2024, penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, which held:

“Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code provides, among others, that ‘[a]n employer may terminate an employment for… [g]ross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties.’ Article 297(b) covers carelessness and even inefficiency of employees in the performance of their tasks. The negligence must not only be gross, i.e., ‘glaringly and flagrantly noticeable because of its inexcusable objectionableness,’ but also habitual, i.e., ‘settled tendency of behavior or normal manner of procedure.’ x x x

“In LBC Express-Metro Manila, Inc. v. Mateo, the Court held that an employer could not be legally compelled to continue the employment of a person who was guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. x x x

“To recall, the infraction of Lingganay which prompted respondents to ultimately dismiss him from employment was his recklessness when he crashed into the rear portion of a Toyota Wigo that caused substantial damage to the car in the amount of P99,000.00 and to the company bus amounting to P6,500.00. To avoid any possible legal suit against the company, respondents were compelled to pay the full amount of P99,000.00 to the car owner. Indubitably, even assuming that Lingganay’s gross negligence was not habitual, the damage and loss caused by his last infraction to the company was so substantial that respondents indeed cannot be legally compelled to continue his employment.” (Emphasis supplied)

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that as an employer, you may validly terminate the employment of your bus driver who was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties, although the said driver’s gross negligence was not habitual. The requirement of habitual negligence may be dispensed with if you can prove that his negligence resulted in substantial damage or loss to you as an employer. In this case, you cannot be compelled to continue his employment.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]