What are the just causes under the Labor Code?


 The just causes in the Labor Code are found in the

following provisions thereof:
 (1) Article 297 [282] - (Termination by the Employer) which provides for the
following grounds:

. (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work; 


. (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; 


. (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative; 


. (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate
member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and 


. (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing 


I.
 SERIOUS MISCONDUCT

1. REQUISITES.

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following requisites must concur:

. It must be serious; and 


. It must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and 


. It must show that he has become unfit to continue working for the employer. 


. All the above three (3) requisites must concur.

SOME PRINCIPLES ON SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.

. Serious misconduct implies that it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or
unimportant. 


. Simple or minor misconduct would not justify the termination of the services of an employee. 


. Immorality, as a general rule, is not a just ground to terminate employment. The exception is when such 

immoral conduct is prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the employer. 


. Immoral act committed beyond office hours is a valid ground to terminate employment. 

. Challenging superiors to a fight is a just cause for termination. 


. Assaulting another employee is a just cause for termination. 


. Utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words constitutes serious misconduct. 


. Gambling within company premises is a serious misconduct. 


. Rendering service to business rival is a just cause to terminate employment. 


. Selling products of a competitor is a just cause for termination. 
 


. Deceiving a customer for personal gain is a just cause for termination. 


. Contracting work in competition with employer constitutes serious misconduct. 


. Sleeping while on duty is a ground for termination. 


. Dismissal is too harsh a penalty for eating while at work. 


. Pilferage or theft of company-owned property is a just cause to terminate. 


. Act of falsification is a valid ground to terminate employment. 


. Punching-in of time cards of other employees is a just cause for termination. 


II.
 INSUBORDINATION
 OR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF LAWFUL ORDERS 


. 1. REQUISITES. 


. One of the fundamental duties of an employee is to obey all reasonable rules, orders and instructions of the
employer. In order to validly invoke this ground, the following requisites must be complied with, to wit:



1. The employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being
characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and 


2. The order violated must be based on a reasonable and lawful company rule, regulation or policy and
made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties for which he has been engaged to discharge.

2. SOME PRINCIPLES ON INSUBORDINATION. 


Making false allegations in complaint does not constitute insubordination.


x Failure to answer memo to explain constitutes willful disobedience.


x Another notice is required in case of termination on the ground of failure to answer memo to explain.


x Refusal to undergo random drug testing constitutes both serious misconduct and insubordination.

x Refusal to render overtime to meet production deadline constitutes insubordination.


x Refusal to comply with a lawful transfer constitutes insubordination. 


III.
 GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTIES 


. 1. REQUISITES. 
 The following are the requisites: 


(1) There must be negligence which is gross and/or habitual in character; and

(2) It must be work-related as would make him unfit to work for his employer. 


2. SOME PRINCIPLES ON GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTIES. 


. Simple negligence is not sufficient to terminate employment.


. The negligence must be gross in character which means absence of that diligence that an ordinarily prudent man

 would use in his own affairs.


. As a general rule, negligence must be both gross and habitual to be a valid ground to dismiss. 


. Habituality may be disregarded if negligence is gross or the damage or loss is substantial. “Habitual
negligence” implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances.
. x Actual damage, loss or injury is not an essential requisite.
 x Gross negligence may result to loss of
trust and confidence.
 x Absences, if authorized, cannot be cited as a ground to terminate
employment.
 x Tardiness or absenteeism, if not habitual, cannot be cited as a ground to terminate
employment.
 x Tardiness or absenteeism, if habitual, may be cited as a ground to terminate
employment.
 x Tardiness or absenteeism, if habitual, may be tantamount to serious misconduct.
 x
 Absences or tardiness due to emergency, ailment or fortuitous event are justified and may not be cited as
just cause
. to terminate employment.
 x Unsatisfactory or poor performance, inefficiency and incompetence
are considered just causes for dismissal
. only if they amount to gross and habitual neglect of duties.

IV. ABANDONMENT OF WORK

1. CONCEPT.
 Abandonment is not provided for in the Labor Code but it is jurisprudentially considered a
form of neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for termination of employment under Article 297(b) [282(b)] of the
Labor Code.

2. REQUISITES.

To constitute abandonment, two (2) elements must concur, namely:

1) The employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason;
and

2) There must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship
manifested by some overt act.

3. SOME PRINCIPLES ON ABANDONMENT.

x Mere absence is not enough to constitute abandonment.
 x Clear intention to sever employment relationship is
necessary.


x Due process in abandonment cases consists only of the service of 2 notices to the employee, viz.:

a. First notice directing the employee to explain why he should not be declared as having abandoned his job; and

b. Second notice to inform him of the employer’s decision to dismiss him on the ground of abandonment.
 x
No hearing is required to validly dismiss an employee for abandonment.

x Notices in abandonment cases must be sent to employee’s last known address per record of the company.
The employer need not look for the employee’s current whereabouts.


x Immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal praying for reinstatement negates abandonment.


x Lapse of time between dismissal and filing of a case is not a material indication of abandonment. Hence, lapse of
2 years and 5 months or 20 months or 9 months or 8 months before filing the complaint for illegal dismissal is not
an indication of abandonment. Under the law, the employee has a 4-year prescriptive period within which to
institute his action for illegal dismissal.

x Filing of a case to pre-empt investigation of the administrative case is tantamount to abandonment.


x When what is prayed for in the complaint is separation pay and not reinstatement, the filing of
complaint does not negate abandonment.

x It is abandonment when what is prayed for in the complaint is separation pay and it was only in the position
paper that reinstatement was prayed for.

x Employment in another firm coinciding with the filing of complaint does not indicate abandonment.
 x Offer
of reinstatement by employer during proceedings before Labor Arbiter and refusal by employee does not indicate
abandonment but more of a symptom of strained relations between the parties.


x An employee may be absolved from the charge of abandonment of work but adjudged guilty of AWOL. These
two grounds are separate and distinct from each other.


x An employee who failed to report for work after the expiration of the duly approved leave of absence is
considered

to have abandoned his job.


x An employee who failed to comply with the order for his reinstatement is deemed to have abandoned his work.



x An employee who, after being transferred to a new assignment, did not report for work anymore is deemed to
have abandoned his job.


x An employee who deliberately absented from work without leave or permission from his employer for the
purpose of looking for a job elsewhere is deemed to have abandoned his work.
 x Imprisonment or detention by
military does not constitute abandonment.
 x Absence to evade arrest is not a valid justification. To do so would
be to place an imprimatur on the employee’s attempt to derail the normal course of the administration of justice.

V. FRAUD
1. REQUISITES.

The following are the requisites of this ground:


1. There must be an act, omission, or concealment;

2. The act, omission or concealment involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed;
3. It must be committed against the employer or his/her representative; and

4. It must be in connection with the employees' work.1

2. SOME PRINCIPLES ON FRAUD.

x Failure to deposit collection constitutes fraud.


x Lack of damage or losses is not necessary in fraud cases. The fact that the employer did not suffer losses from
the dishonesty of the dismissed employee because of its timely discovery does not excuse the latter from any
culpability.

x Lack of misappropriation or shortage is immaterial in case of unauthorized encashment of personal checks by

teller and cashier.


x Restitution does not have absolutory effect.

VI.
 WILLFUL BREACH OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

1. REQUISITES.

For the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied:

. (1) The employee holds a position of trust and confidence; 


. (2) Thereexistsanactjustifyingthelossoftrustandconfidence,whichmeansthattheactthatbetraysthe 
 employer’s

trust must be real, i.e., founded on clearly established facts; 


. (3) Theemployee’sbreachofthetrustmustbewillful,i.e.,itwasdoneintentionally,knowinglyandpurposely, 
 without

justifiable excuse; and 


. (4) The act must be in relation to his work which would render him unfit to perform it. 


2. GUIDELINES.
As a safeguard against employers who indiscriminately use “loss of trust and confidence” to justify arbitrary
dismissal of employees, the Supreme Court, in addition to the above elements, came up with the following
guidelines for the application of the doctrine:

. (1) The loss of confidence must not be simulated; 


. (2) It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal ,improper or unjustified; 


. (3) It may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and 


. (4) Itmustbegenuine,notamereafterthought,tojustifyearlieractiontakeninbadfaith. 


The foregoing guidelines have been prescribed by the Supreme Court due to the subjective nature of this

ground which makes termination based on loss of trust and confidence prone to abuse.

3. SOME PRINCIPLES ON THE DOCTRINE OF LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.

x Employee’s position must be reposed with trust and confidence.


x “Position of trust and confidence” is one where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or
with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer’s property.


x Two (2) classes of positions of trust. The first class consists of managerial employees or those who, by the
nature of their position, are entrusted with confidential and delicate matters and from whom greater fidelity to duty
is correspondingly expected. They refer to those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or to
effectively recommend such managerial actions. Their primary duty consists of the management of the
establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof.

The second class consists of fiduciary rank-and-file employees who, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged
with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer's money or property, or entrusted with
confidence on delicate matters, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence. Included
under this class are “cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal and routine exercise of
their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of [the employer’s] money or property.”

x Rules on termination of managerial and supervisory employees different from those applicable to rank-
and-file employees. Thus, with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as a ground for
valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question and that mere uncorroborated
assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But as regards a managerial employee, the mere
existence of a basis for believing that he has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal.

x There must be “some basis” for the loss of trust and confidence which means that there is reasonable ground
to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction, that the concerned employee is responsible for the misconduct
and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence
demanded by his position.

x Dismissal due to feng shui mismatch is not a valid ground to lose trust and confidence.
x Command responsibility of managerial employees is a ground to dismiss.
 x Confidential employee may be
dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.


x Grant of promotions and bonuses negates loss of trust and confidence.

x Long years of service, absence of derogatory record and small amount involved are deemed inconsequential
insofar as loss of trust and confidence is concerned.

x Dropping of criminal charges or acquittal in a criminal case arising from the same act does not affect the validity
of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence.

VII. COMMISSION OF CRIME OR OFFENSE

1. REQUISITES.

The following are the requisites for the valid invocation of this ground:

. A crime or offense was committed by the employee; 


. It was committed against any of the following persons: 


(a) His employer;


(b) Any immediate member of his employer’s family;or

(c) His employer’s duly authorized representative.

2. SOME PRINCIPLES ON THE COMMISSION OF CRIME OR OFFENSE.

􏰀Because of its gravity, work-relation is not necessary. Neither is it necessary to show that the commission of the
criminal act would render the employee unfit to perform his work for the employer.

VIII.
 OTHER ANALOGOUS CAUSES

1. ANALOGOUS CAUSES UNDER ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.

The following may be cited as analogous causes:

. 1) Violation of company rules and regulations. 


. 2) Theftofpropertyownedbyaco-employee,asdistinguishedfromtheftofpropertyownedbytheemployer. 


. 3) Incompetence, inefficiency or ineptitude. 


. 4) Failure to attain work quota. 


. 5) Failure to comply with weight standards of employer. 


. 6) “Attitude problem” is analogous to loss of trust and confidence.