Saturday, September 22, 2007 Double penalty for infraction By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENT Pilardo Ismael, a patron of petitioners’ fishing boat which was on a fishing expedition in the open seas, boarded a fish carrier to take him to Zamboanga City to seek an emergency treatmentt. In doing so, he delegated his duties to a subordinate. In a case for illegal dismissal, petitioners interposed the defense of habitual neglect of duty on the part of Ismael.
They contended that in two previous incidents, Ismael likewise disembarked from the boat in violation of instructions. Was there merit to the defense?
Ruling: No.
We are not persuaded. Private respondent had already been adequately penalized for his two prior acts of disembarkation. He was meted out appropriate punishments for the commission of the unwarranted disembarkations of May 13, 1997 and March 30, 1998. As can be gleaned from the records, on May 15 to 30, 1997, private respondent was meted out the penalty of suspension form employment. Likewise, as punishment for the March 30, 1998 incident, he was penalized with suspension for 10 days from March 30 to April 9, 1998.
The fact that private respondent had been penalized for his two prior infractions cannot be considered in the determination of the habitual nature of neglect of duty under Article 282 of the Labor Code because to do so would be to unduly penalize private respondent twice for his infraction. (Dr. Danilo T. Ting, et. al. versus Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 146174, July 12, 2006).
