School of Holy Spirit of QC v.

Corazon Taguiam

Taguiam was a Grade 5 class adviser of petitioner. In connection to the year end celebration, the principal authorized the
use of the swimming pool. Chiara, a pupil drown in the event. Taguiam however admitted that her permit form was
unsigned by the guardian BUT her mother personally brought her with her packed lunch and swimsuit. Taguiam warned
the pupil not to go to the draper area. During the event, 2 pupils sneaked out and Taguiam went after them when Chiara
was drowned. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

Petitioner then issued a Notice of Administrative Charge for gross negligence and required her to submit her written
explanation. A clarificatory hearing was conducted and Taguiam attended. She was dismissed for gross negligence
resulting to loss of trust and confidence. The parents also filed a damage suit of 7 million against the parties and criminal
complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Taguiam then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA held the she was validly terminated for leaving the students
without any adult supervision. Despite of being not habitual, it still warrants the dismissal as it resulted to death. The
NLRC affirmed the decision. The CA however reversed the ruling there being insufficient proof that respondent
negligence was both gross and habitual.

WON the dismissal was valid.

Yes. 282 of the labor code provides that gross and habitual neglect of duties is a valid ground for dismissal. Gross
negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence. It is a thoughtful disregard of
consequence without exerting any effort to avoid them. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform ones duties
for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.

She was grossly negligent. Chiaras permit was unsigned, assumption is not enough. She should have coordinated with the
school to ensure safety such as first aid and sufficient adult personnel. She should have not left the pool there being guards
who can look after the 2 pupils who sneaked out. Not being habitual is not an excuse. Set aside.

Florencio M. Dela Cruz v. NLRC

Petitioner was hired by Shemberg as senior sales manager. The position was then newly created in line with its objective
of product positioning in the consumer market. On September 1996, the human resource department summoned petitioner
and informed him of the decision to terminate his services. The HR merely informed him that it was due to the drop in
company's sales. He requested a meeting but was told that the decision was final. His request for 30 day written notice
was also denied. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondent answered that it was due to his poor
performance, dissatisfaction of his subordinates, unauthorized use of company cellular phone for overseas personal calls,
unauthorized reimbursement of the plane tickets of his wife and child. In short, he was terminated for his failure to meet
the standards and for loss of trust and confidence.

LA held that he was illegally dismissed. NLRC dismissed the appeal but in it modified its ruling in the reconsideration.
The CA dismissed his petition for lack of merit. MR was denied.

WON Dela Cruz was validly dismissed.

Yes. He was holding a managerial position performing key functions in accordance with an exacting work ethic. The
position requires full trust and confidence. He committed a transgression that betrayed the trust and confidence when he
reimbursed personal travel expenses out of company funds. This amounts to fraud or deceit. With regard to the calls, no
proof that he was the ONLY one who made those calls. No evidence presented that not all calls are connected with the
company official business. Petitioners denial cannot prevail over the actual presentation of plane tickets. The possession
of the company means that he really submitted the same for reimbursement.
He is a mere probationary employee as manifested in his appointment paper, attached with his job description. He is thus
informed of the reasonable standards at the time of his engagement. He is terminable anytime for being not permanent for
the mean time. As long as it was done before the 6 month period, the employer has all the right to sever the employee-er
relationship.

Dismissed.