Practice question
A bank employee is validly dismissed for gross and habitual neglect involving repeated breaches of controls over accountable forms. The employee argues that a superior encouraged the acts and that the neglect involved no proven theft. The request is solely for equitable assistance. Which analysis follows Security Bank?
- Gross and habitual neglect remains a recognized disqualifying ground; absence of theft or a superior’s influence does not automatically justify assistance.
- Assistance is compulsory unless theft is proved.
- Every superior’s suggestion excuses repeated neglect.
- Long employment automatically converts the neglect into an authorized cause.
- Equitable assistance is identical to wages already earned.
Legal references
- Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders v Diasnes, G.R. No. 163607, July 14, 2008, financial assistance limits: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_163607_2008.html
- Security Bank Savings Corporation v Singson, G.R. No. 214230, February 10, 2016, financial assistance and culpable dismissal grounds: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/feb2016/gr_214230_2016.html
- Labor Code, DOLE consolidated 2022 edition, Articles 219, 258–260, 262–264, 274 and 278–279: https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/natlex2/files/download/15242/PHL15242%202022.pdf; Articles 297–299.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.