PROJECT TITTLE : COMPULSORY SSS and PHILHEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL DRIVERS OF PUBLIC

TRANSPORT
PROJECT COVERAGE: Drivers of PUJ, PUB, Taxi, FX/Vans, Truckers, Tricycles

BACKGROUNDER:
Drivers of public utility transport consisting of jeepneys, taxi, buses, truckers and tricycles
numbering about 3 million are among the workers belonging to the D and E classes in our
society.
They are one of those who do not care (?) about what their future brings ( for them and their
family). They are the ones who makes both ends meets thru hard work on the wheels, working
at least 12 to 14 hours a day in order to feed their family/ies ? Isang kahig, isang tuka, as the
saying goes.
Drivers of these public utilities are always prone to accidents and health risks. They don’t care
much about their health as long as they are strong, enough to earn for a day, and not minding
about what tomorrow will bring. Oftentimes, drivers contract diseases like tuberculosis, and
lung-related diseases, accidents on the roads, hold-ups and other insecurities on the road.
When they grow old and retire, or unable to drive anymore, they are not secured. Why?
Because they did not prepare for it. Many do not have pensions to look up to when they
retire. Kawawa sila at ang mga pamilya nila When they get sick, they just content themselves
going to public hospitals to avail of free hospitalization and medicine, or to health centers.
On the other hand, many programs about the drivers have been initiated by concerned
agencies of the government but nothing concrete and successful came out. The only ones that
nearly succeeded were the transport cooperatives that were organized during the Marcos era.
Drivers of transport cooperatives then, were required to remit compulsory contributions to the
SSS, Medicare and PAGIBIG for social benefits. But that is another story.
CAN IT BE DONE?
Operators and drivers see the Boundary system as the main culprit in the non-implementation
or hard to implement scheme of contributing to the SSS and Philhealth.
This apathy and hard-headedness of both operators and drivers make it nearly impossible for
such a program to be implemented. But can it be done? The answer is YES! It just needs
the SINCERE actions of both (operator and driver) to be RESPONSIBLE enough, and
to TRUST each other and to think of their future and the future of their families.
CAN COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTION TO THE SSS AND PHILHEALTH BE
FEASIBLE?
Now, this question comes to mind. The answer is a big YES. Contributions of drivers for their
health and social security, if only given concrete actions by agencies concerned can be done.
It needs a Political Will on the part of the government to enforce such law or a regulation or a
memorandum circular, or whatever. Just give the regulation to them and they will follow. No
matter how some transport organizations will reject the idea, we firmly believe they shall
welcome it if only concrete actions of the leading agencies with POLITICAL WILL to
implement it. If it was done for the domestic maids or “kasambahay”, why not for the drivers!
HAVE POLITICAL WILL- IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM !
Many drivers have been, in one way card bearing SSS members. They may have
been employed either in private or local or even OFWs. Many have wished to continue paying
their premiums, but they just don’t know how. Thru this agreement or program, drivers can
now continue their monthly contributions to SSS and PHILHEALTH and be assured of their
future, when they come to their retirement days.
Just Causes for the Termination of Employees.

Definition
Just causes for dismissal of employee may be defined as those lawful or valid grounds for
termination of employment which arise from causes directly attributable to the fault or
negligence of the erring employee.Just causes are usually serious or grave in nature and
attended by willful or wrongful intent or they reflected adversely on the moral character
of the employees.
As opposed to authorized causes under Article 283 wherein the termination of
employment is dictated by necessity of the business, the dismissal under just causes is
imposed by the employer to the erring employee as a punishment for the latter’s acts or
omission.
Just Causes Under the Labor Code
Just causes for termination under the Labor Code is found in Article 282 and enumerated
here as follows:
1. Serious misconduct. Serious misconduct is an improper conduct willful in
character and of such grave nature that transgressed some established and
definite rule of action in relation to the employee’s work.
2. Willful disobedience to lawful orders. The employees are bound to follow
reasonable and lawful orders of the employer which are in connection with their
work. Failure to do so may be a ground for dismissal or other disciplinary action.
3. Gross and habitual neglect of duties. Gross negligence has been defined as
the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them.
4. Fraud or willful breach of trust. Fraud is any act, omission, or concealment
which involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed and is
injurious to another.
5. Commission of a crime or offense. Commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized representative, is a just cause for termination of employment.
6. Analogous causes. Other causes analogous to the above grounds may also be a
just cause for termination of employment.
Examples of Analogous Causes
1. Abandonment. Abandonment of job is a form of neglect of duty. There is
abandonment when the employee leave his job or position with a clear and
deliberate intent to discontinue his employment without any intention of returning
back.
2. Gross inefficiency. Gross inefficiency is analogous to and closely related to gross
neglect for both involve acts or omissions on the part of the employee resulting in
damage to the employer or to his business. (See Lim vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118434,
July 26, 1996.)
3. Disloyalty/conflict of interest. Disloyalty exists when one asserts an interest,
or performs acts adverse to one’s employer, such as secretly engaging in a
business which renders him a competitor and rival of his employer. It constitutes a
 breach of an implied condition of the contract of employment. (See Elizalde
International vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L40553 February 26, 1981.)
4. Dishonesty. Acts of dishonesty deemed to be patently inimical to the employer is
analogous to breach of trust and is a valid cause for termination of employment.
No Separation Pay
An employee who is terminated from employment for a just cause is not entitled to
payment of separation benefits. Section 7, Rule I, Book VI, of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides:
“Sec. 7. Termination of employment by employer. – The just causes for terminating the
services of an employee shall be those provided in Article 282 of the Code. The
separation from work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the
termination pay provided in Code, without prejudice, however, to whatever rights,
benefits and privileges he may have under the applicable individual or collective
bargaining agreement with the employer or voluntary employer policy or practice.”

Last Edited: Sunday, November 28, 2010

Caveat: Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to, or repeal of, laws,
rules and regulations may have rendered the whole or part of this article inaccurate or
obsolete.

Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty

Gross Negligence Meaning.
Gross negligence is a just cause for termination of employment by employer under Article
282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight
care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
Negligence must be Habitual.
In order to constitute a just cause for the employee’s dismissal, the neglect of duties
must not only be gross but also habitual. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to
perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.
A single isolated acts of negligence do not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the
employee.
However, in a number of cases, the SC upheld the validity of dismissal on the ground of
gross negligence even if the act complained of was not habitual. Thus, a bank employee
was found grossly negligent when she delivered newly approved credit cards to
a person she had not even seen before and she did not even ask for receipts, thereby
enabling fictitious persons to use these cards, causing P740,000.00 loss to the bank.
(SeeCitibank vs. Gatchalian, G.R. No. 111222, January 18, 1995.)
Habitual Absenteeism and Tardiness.
Habitual absenteeism and tardiness constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty.
Repeated acts of absences without leave and frequent tardiness reflect indifferent
attitude to and lack of motivation in his work.
Caveat: Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to, or repeal of, laws,
rules and regulations may have rendered the whole or part of this article inaccurate or
obsolete.