BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO

MARCELINO LINGGANAY VS. DEL MONTE LAND TRANSPORT BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL:G.R. NO. 254976 (AUGUST 20, 2024): RECKLESS DRIVING A JUST CAUSE TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT

The case stemmed from a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal after respondent Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company, Inc. (“respondent Company”) dismissed petitioner Marcelino Lingganay (“petitioner Lingganay”) for repeated reckless driving resulting to accidents which caused damage to respondent Company. The first accident was on October 21, 2013, when Lingganay, while driving the Company bus along Maharlika Highway in Brgy. Concepcion, Plaridel, Quezon Province, figured an accident involving one Isidro Alvarez. On January 21, 2017, petitioner Lingganay was suspended for ten (10) days after he met an accident again with a motorcycle on December 30, 2016. Petitioner Lingganay resumed his duties on January 31, 2017, but with “warning” from respondent Company. On May 1, 2017, while driving the Company bus along San Juanico Bridge in Samar, he again figured an accident as he crashed into the rear portion of a Toyota Wigo. As a result, the latest accident caused Php6,500.00 to the Company for the repair of the Company bus and Php99,000.00 for the repair of the Toyota Wigo. 

Petitioner Lingganay was issued a Memorandum on May 5, 2017 giving him five (5) days to explain his side and was placed under preventing suspension. On May 22, 2017, petitioner Lingganay submitted his handwritten Salaysay and attended the administrative hearing/investigation of the case. In a Decision dated May 29, 2017, respondent Company terminated petitioner Lingganay’s employment for transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety, i.e., “Violation 8.1.4 – Any form of laxity, reckless driving and gross negligence resulting to damages to property, injuries, death, and other casualties.” Hence, petitioner Lingganay filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the same. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter holding that there is no need for his infractions to be gross and habitual as he was dismissed due to gross negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.

The Supreme Court first resolved the issue on whether it was proper for the Labor Arbiter to rule on matters not raised in the Complaint but was raised in the Position Paper. In the case a quo, the Labor Arbiter denied the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint of petitioner Lingganay which was filed along with and incorporated in his Position Paper. The Supreme Court clarified the rulings in Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs. Parian, G.R. No. 204651 (August 6, 2014), and Samar-Med Distribution vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162385 (July 15, 2013) since these cases were decided under the old 1990 NLRC Rules which allows resolution of a case based on issues raised in the Complaint and/or Position Paper. Under the 2005 NLRC Rules onwards, the Court held that it did not carry over the said provision and that in the provision on mandatory conference, one of the purposes is to determine the propriety of amending the Complaint. Ergo, only those raised in the Complaint may be included in the Position Paper and may be decided by the Labor Arbiter. If there is any issues that the complainant wants to be raised after the filing of the Complaint but before filing of the Position Paper, he or she must amend his Complaint to include these claims not raised in the Complaint. 

On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court held that the past infractions of petitioner Lingganay not only repeatedly endangered properties, safety, or lives of his passengers, the pedestrians and the riding public; they likewise exposed respondent from liabilities. Citing LBC Express – Metro Manila, Inc. vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 168215 (June 9, 2009), the Supreme Court held: “To recall, the infraction of Lingganay which prompted respondents to ultimately dismiss him from employment was his recklessness when he crashed into the rear portion of a Toyota Wigo that caused substantial damage to the car in the amount of PHP99,000.00 and to the company bus amounting to Php6,500.00. To avoid any possible legal suit against the company, respondents were compelled to pay the full amount of PHP99,000.00 to the car owner. Indubitably, even assuming that Lingganay’s gross negligence was not habitual, the damage and loss caused by his last infraction to the company was so substantial that respondents indeed cannot be legally compelled to continue with his employment.”

In LBC Express-Metro Manila, Inc. vs. Mateo, supra, the Supreme Court also upheld the dismissal of the employee whose reckless driving resulted to damage to his employer:

“Mateo was undisputedly negligent when he left the motorcycle along Burke Street in Escolta, Manila without locking it despite clear, specific instructions to do so. His argument that he stayed inside the LBC office for only three to five minutes was of no moment. On the contrary, it only proved that he did not exercise even the slightest degree of care during that very short time. Mateo deliberately did not heed the employer’s very important precautionary measure to ensure the safety of company property. Regardless of the reasons advanced, the exact evil sought to be prevented by LBC (in repeatedly directing its customer associates to lock their motorcycles) occurred, resulting in a substantial loss to LBC.

Although Mateo’s infraction was not habitual, we must take into account the substantial amount lost. In this case, LBC lost a motorcycle with a book value of ₱46,000 which by any means could not be considered a trivial amount. Mateo was entrusted with a great responsibility to take care of and protect company property and his gross negligence should not allow him to walk away from that incident as if nothing happened and, worse, to be rewarded with backwages to boot.

An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person admittedly guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. This holds true specially if the employee’s continued tenure is patently inimical to the employer’s interest. What happened was not a simple case of oversight and could not be attributed to a simple lapse of judgment. No amount of good intent, or previous conscientious performance of duty, can assuage the damage Mateo caused LBC when he failed to exercise the requisite degree of diligence required of him under the circumstances.”