Saturday, October 07, 2006 Negligence By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
Petitioner Pedro Chavez was hired by respondent Supreme Packaging Inc. as truck driver to deliver products to various customers. He was paid per trip basis using a truck provided by respondent.
Cruz filed a complaint against Supreme Packaging for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and other money claims. The respondent invoked the defense that Cruz failed to observe the minimum degree of diligence in the proper maintenance of the truck he was using. Did this defense prosper?
Ruling: No.
Neither can the respondents’ claim that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence in the proper maintenance of the truck constitute a valid and just cause for his dismissal. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. The negligence, to warrant removal from service, should not merely be gross but also habitual. The single and isolated act of the petitioner’s negligence in the proper maintenance of the truck alleged by the respondents does not amount “gross and habitual neglect” warranting his dismissal. (Pedro Chavez versus NLRC, et. al. G.R. No. 146530, Jan. 17, 2006).
