SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239463. June 22, 2020.]
ROMULO S. CRUZ, petitioner,vs. REPUBLIC CORRUGATED CARTONS and ALCOHOL, INC. [formerly REPUBLIC CORRUGATED CARTONS] and MARCELO TAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 June 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239463 (Romulo S. Cruz v. Republic Corrugated Cartons and Alcohol, Inc. [formerly Republic Corrugated Cartons] and Marcelo Tan). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 31, 2017 Decision 2 and the April 10, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09119 for failure of petitioner Romulo S. Cruz (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the validity of his dismissal and in awarding the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner was validly dismissed from employment on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of duty. The frequent and repeated tardiness committed by petitioner from 1999 to 2013 is tantamount to gross and habitual neglect of duty, considering that: (a) his acts evince a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them; 4 and (b) he repeatedly committed the same for a period of time. 5 In this regard, it is settled that an employee may be dismissed based on the totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment, since the fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct, and ability separate and independent of each other, 6 as in this case.
Finally, the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages is warranted, since petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to answer the charges against him. As aptly noted by the CA, petitioner was already dismissed from employment even prior to the receipt of his notice to explain. Accordingly, he was not given a real opportunity to be heard before he was terminated from employment.
SO ORDERED. (Gaerlan, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020, on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp.n
2.Id. at 18-27. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurring.
3.Id. at 29-30.
4. See Acebedo Optical v. NLRC, 554 Phil. 524 (2007).
5. See Mansion Printing Center v. Bitara, Jr., 680 Phil. 43 (2012).
6. See Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Carbonilla, Jr., 779 Phil. 563 (2016), citing Realda v. New Age Graphics, Inc., 686 Phil. 1110 (2012).
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.