Dear Atty. Kathy,

We have an employee, X, who management wanted to dismiss on the ground of gross neglect of duty because of his habitual leaves of absence and tardiness. During the midyear performance evaluation covering the first six months of the year, he was reported to have used up all his 10 sick leave credits and five service incentive leave credits, and thus, was unable to work for 15 days.

Based on the computer printouts of the daily attendance records automatically generated from the company's attendance system and attached to the midyear performance evaluation, X was also habitually tardy on an average of 10 working days per month during the said six-month rating period. Would termination of employment be justified under such circumstances?

Jayden

***

Dear Jayden,

You mentioned that X used up all his 15 leave credits, implying that these were all approved leaves, which leaves X is entitled to during the course of his employment. Such 15-day leave cannot be characterized as a reckless disregard for the safety of the company. It could not be said that X repeatedly neglected his duty for he was only absent for a total of 15 days for the six-month rating period.

Further, only habitual absenteeism without leave constitutes gross negligence. However, in your narration, it appears that X used up all his 15 leave credits, to which he is entitled.

With regard to habitual tardiness, this alone is a just cause for dismissal. Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every employee, whether in government or the private sector, whereas habitual tardiness is a serious offense that may very well constitute gross or habitual neglect of duty, a just cause to dismiss a regular employee. Habitual tardiness manifests a lack of initiative, diligence, and discipline that are inimical to the employer's general productivity and business interest.

You mentioned that the charge of habitual tardiness is based on the computer printouts of the daily attendance record. If the said computer printouts are not authenticated, the alleged habitual tardiness of X will not be substantiated. The Supreme Court had previously disregarded unsigned listings and computer printouts presented in evidence by the employer to prove its employee's absenteeism and tardiness. Unauthenticated computer printouts are unreliable and would be considered self-serving, and will be rejected as evidence for not having any rational, probative value, even in administrative proceedings. Without reliable and reasonable proof that X was indeed habitually tardy, it cannot be concluded that X is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty.