VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND VIRGINIA ANTIOLA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, let the instant case be, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [7] Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. In reversing the decision of the labor arbiter, the NLRC said that: The most, arguendo , that may be said against complainant here is that in failing to exercise due diligence in the performance of her assigned task(s), she committed Gross xxx neglect in the performance of her duty. But pertinently, Article 282(b) of the Labor Code requires that to qualify as a valid cause for dismissal such neglect must not only be gross, it should be Gross and habitual neglect in character. Noting that the Labor Arbiter, himself admits that individual complainant has committed the infraction for the first time, as the records will show (Decision, p.6 Record, p. 54), we thus rule that the penalty of dismissal is quite severe here. Against the backdrop that the complainant was dismissed on January 12, 1989 and has been deprived by petitioner company of wages for about three years and four months, we opine that an award of reinstatement plus one year backwages will suffice. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate complainant with backwages limited to one year. SO ORDERED.