Dear Atty. Kathy,

I was a Shipping and Receiving Clerk in a warehouse/ logistics company. My employment was terminated due to gross and habitual negligence because of the theft of warehouse items worth almost P800,000. I think my dismissal is not fair because I did not have any direct participation in the theft. As the Clerk, my job was to check and log the details of each item before they are received or dispatched through my office, so I did not physically control the security of the area. In fact, when I noticed that some items were missing, I had the initiative to do my own inspection for about six weeks and doubled my inventory work, until Management did an audit so I reported my observations to them. Was I validly dismissed even if I did not have any participation in the theft?

Hudson

Dear Hudson,

For gross and habitual negligence to be a valid ground to terminate employment, the negligence should be characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected; and must be habitual such that there is a repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time. However, the Court has departed from the requirement of habituality, where the employer suffered substantial losses because of the gravity of negligence.

Based on your narration, your duties were to verify and inspect the items coming in and out from the warehouse, as well as, to check the inventory. As ruled by the Supreme Court, if you regularly performed your duties as Clerk, which included conducting the inventory, the theft of the items could have been averted or at least discovered while the losses were still minimal; and, the necessary security measures could have been immediately imposed to prevent further theft.

You also did not immediately report the missing items after you noticed the same. As a Clerk who is responsible for verifying the items coming in and going out of the warehouse, as well as, checking the inventory, it was incumbent upon you to immediately report any irregularity in the warehouse, especially any losses. While it does not appear that there is any direct evidence of theft on your part, or that you were directly involved in the theft of the items, you are deemed nonetheless complicit because you failed to perform your duties in monitoring the items and the inventory. In sum, it appears that there is just cause in your dismissal, due to the gravity of your negligence and the resultant damages and losses suffered by the warehouse company.

(Nilo D. Lafuente, et al. versus Davao Central Warehouse Club Inc., et al., G.R. No. 247410, 17 March 2021)

Atty. Kathy Larios