Saturday, September 29, 2007 No material prejudice By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENT Pilardo Ismael disembarked from petitioners’ fishing boat of which he was the patron while it was on a fishing expedition in open seas to seek emergency treatment in Zamboanga City. He delegated his duty as patron to Francisco Dorens, a subordinate. Consequently, he was immediately dismissed from the service by petitioners for gross neglect of duty. Was the dismissal justified?
Ruling: No.
Private respondent’s act is similarly mitigated by the fact that there was no material prejudice shown as a result of the act of designating “F/B Liza V” to an unlicensed individual. While we are not unmindful that no material injury need be shown to sustain a finding of gross negligence, private respondent was without bad faith and had reasonable basis for designating the fishing boat to Francisco Dorens.
Private respondent had believed the latter to be the responsible substitute in cases of emergency due to the unavailability of the captain. Harboring from an intense physical condition that demanded medical attention, it can be said that on June 11, 1998, private respondent merely committed an error in judgment, but not an act so gross as to constitute just cause for his separation.
Evidence is wanting as to prove depravity of the act. (Dr. Danilo T. Ting, et. al. versus Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146174, July 12, 2006)
