UNIVERSAL STAFFING V. NLRC (LABOR)

Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Thus, the fact the an employee's performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of case. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

We reviewed the records of the case ans we agree with the NLRC and the CA that no substantial evidence was presented to substantiate the cause of Morales' dismissal. First, USSI failed o cite particular acts or instances that would validate its claim of Morales' poor performance. Second, no convincing proof was offered to substantiate Morales' alleged poor performance.

The notice of termination and the statement purportedly executed by USSi stating that Morales was dismissed due to her poor performance and for revealing secret information of potential clients do not constitute substantial evidence.

Besides, even assuming that Morales' performance was unsatisfactorily, USSI failed to demonstrate that her alleged poor performance amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duty, which would justify her dismissal.

Further, Morales was not accorded due process. Under Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about to be terminated, a written notice stating the cause/s for termination and must give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. There was no chowing that USSI warned Morales of her alleged poor performance. Likewise, Morales was not served the first notice apprising her of the particular acts or omissions on which her dismissal was based together with the opportunity to explain her side. The only notice given to Morales was the letter informing her that she was already terminated.

Certainly, there can be no other conclusion than that Morales was illegally dismissed and her employment contract was illegally terminated. The CA therefore committed no reversible error in sustaining the NLRC on this point.

With this finding, it is imperative that Morales be granted the monetary benefits due her. However, we rule that the CA erred in modifying the amounts awarded by the NLRC since as shown by the records, Morales did not appeal from the said NLRC decision; hence, the same attained finality as to Morales - the monetary awards had been laid to rest. This is in accord with the doctrine that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the appealed decision.