6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Report to prove that respondent was validly dismissed. On the other hand, respondent admitted that he was furnished a copy of this Report but he declined to receive it. Thus, as regards the existence of the subject Report, We find that the same was duly proved here. However, the contents of this Report were insufficient bases to dismiss respondent. As stated therein, respondent was dismissed for the following reasons: DISMISSAL (Brief Details): HE HAS AN OBVIOUS HANDICAP WHICH IS A STIFF RIGHT ARM. THIS HANDICAP ALLOWS HIM TO COOK, BUT [REGRETABLY] IT MAKES MR. CAMPOREDONO [sic] UNABLE TO ALSO SERVE THE MEALS AND CLEAN THE KITCHEN, MESSROOMS, STORES RESPECTABLE [sic]. WITH ASSISTENCE [sic] OF A MESSMAN HE CAN DO HIS JOB RESPECTIVE [sic].[30] As found by the CA, the Report provided no detailed explanation as regards respondent's supposed incompetence and poor performance. The CA observed that the Report "did not particularly describe such inability that would lead to the conclusion that he was incompetent."[31] With this observation of the CA, we fully agree. As a general concept, poor performance is tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. An unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Poor or unsatisfactory performance of an employee does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties.[32] To ascribe gross neglect, there must be lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the total absence of care in the performance of duties. In other words, there is gross neglect when the employee exhibits thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting effort to avoid them.[33] On the other hand, habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to perform duties in a single or isolated instance.[34] As above-discussed, the Report of incompetent action/insubordination/indiscipline against respondent did not describe the specific acts that would establish his alleged poor performance, or his want of even slight care in the performance of his official tasks as chief cook for a certain period of time; hence, even assuming that respondent's performance was unsatisfactory, petitioners failed to show that his poor performance amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the CA, no credence can be given to the e-mails presented by petitioners to support respondent's purported incompetence because these e-mails were unauthenticated. In addition, they pertained to the previous contract of respondent, which is unrelated to this present case. Petitioners did not comply with the two-notice rule required in dismissing an employee. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61248 6/10