Grounds for Valid Dismissal

1) Just cause under Article 282

2) Authorized cause under Article 283
3) Dismissal due to disease found in Article 282.
 Just cause

Enumerated under Article 282 of the LC

Just cause presupposes that there was an act

done by or an act that is required to be done of
an employee but was not accomplished.

Violation of Company's Code of Conduct/Rules

& Regulations

Violation of the CBA

 Difference between dismissal Just Cause &
Authorized Cause

In dismissal for just cause, the employee is dismissed for

causes which are attributable to his fault or culpability.

In termination of employment for authorized causes, the

employee is dismissed for causes independent of his fault.

Before an employee is dismissed for just cause, he must be

given ample opportunity to be heard & defend himself while
before an employee is dismissed for an authorized cause he
must be given at least 1 month notice before the intended
date of dismissal.

Where the dismissal is for just cause, the employee, as a

general rule, is not entitled to separation pay while an
employee dismissed for authorized cause is entitled to
separation pay.
Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or
authorized cause as provided by law, but
rudimentary requirements of procedural due
process notice and hearing must be observed
before an employee may be dismissed.
Failure of the employer to observe the
SUBSTANTIVE and PROCEDURAL requirements
would amount to ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

Substantive due process complied with
once the grounds are established to justify a
disciplinary action.

Procedural due process is complied with

once the required processess under the law are
observed.
 ONUS PROBANDI
It is a basic principle in the dismissal of employees
that the burden of proof rests upon the employer
to show that the dismissal of the employee is for a
just cause and failure to do so would mean that
the termination of employment was not justified.
Weight of evidence? Substantial.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
Circumstances affecting validity of dismissal

1. Gravity of the offense

2. Employment position
3. Length of service
4. Totality of infractions
 Series of Irregularities
A series of irregularities when put together may
constitute serious misconduct, which is a just
cause for termination.

Raza vs. Onu, G.R. No. 188464 July 29, 2015

 Totality of Infractions Rule
The totality of infractions or the number of violations
committed during the period of employment shall be
considered in determining the penalty to be imposed
upon an erring employee.
The offenses committed by the employee should not
be taken singly and separately.
A repetition of the same offense for which one has
been previously disciplined and cautioned evinces
deliberateness and willful intent; it negates mere
lapse or error in judgment.(demonstrated in Mapili vs.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Line)
The record of an employee is a relevant consideration in
determining the penalty that should be meted out since
an employee's past misconduct and present behavior
must be taken together in determining the proper
imposable penalty.
What if the employee had already been penalized for his
past transgressions and his misconduct?
What if he had never been penalized?
 Length of service- Can be
aggravating or mitigating
Where 2 cashiers of a department store failed to
report to management the shortages & overages
in their collections as soon as they arose, it was
ruled that dismissal was valid because of breach
of fiduciary trust reposed in them by the company;
their 14 years of service should be taken against
them. Their offenses committed reflect a
regrettable lack of loyalty.
 SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Misconduct has been defined as the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willfull in character, and implies
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.
The misconduct to be serious, within the meaning of the
Labor Code, must be of such grave & aggravated
character & not merely trivial or unimportant. Such
misconduct, however, serious, must be in connection with
the employee's work to constitute just cause for his
separation
 REQUISITES
1)It must be serious;
2)Must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties;
3)Must show that the employee has become unfit
to continue working for the employer.
EXAMPLES
 Violation of Company Policy

In Yabut v. Manila Electric Company, an employee

challenged his dismissal claiming that he was not involved in
the shunting of electricity into his household. Moreover,
assuming that he was the one who tapped the meter, his act
was not related to the performance of his work.
Tampering with electric meters or metering installations of the
Company or the installation of any device, with the purpose of
defrauding the Company is classified as an act of dishonesty
from Meralco employees, expressly prohibited under company
rules. It is reasonable that its commission is classified as a
severe act of dishonesty, punishable by dismissal even on its
first commission, given the nature and gravity of the offense
and the fact that it is a grave wrong directed against their
employer.
 Accusatory and inflammatory language

In Nissan Motors Phils. v. Angelo, the employee was

validly dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct
due to his letter-explanation which carried accusatory
and inflammatory language against the employer.
The Court found the language used by the employee in
his Letter-Explanation akin to a manifest refusal to
cooperate with company officers, and resorted to conduct
which smacks of outright disrespect and willful defiance
of authority or insubordination. The misconduct was
grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or
unimportant.
The Letter-Explanation partly reads:
Again, its not negligence on my part and Im not alone
to be blamed. Its negligence on your part [Perla Go] and
A.A. Del Rosario kasi, noong pang April 1999 ay alam
ninyo na hindi ako ang dapat may responsibilidad ng
payroll kundi ang Section Head eh bakit hindi ninyo
pinahawak sa Section Head noon pa. Pati kaming
dalawa sa payroll, kasama ko si Thelma. Tinanggal nyo
si Thelma. Hindi nyo ba naisip na kailangan dalawa ang
tao sa payroll para pag absent ang isa ay may gagawa.
Dapat noon nyo pa naisip iyan. Ang tagal kong gumawa
ng trabahong hindi ko naman dapat ginagawa.
 False, malicious, and libelous remarks

The employee maliciously and publicly imputed on

Sepulveda the crime of robbery of P200.00. As gleaned
from his Complaint dated September 7, 1999 which he
filed with the General Administration, he knew that it was
Delos Santos who opened his drawer and not Sepulveda.
Thus, by his own admission, petitioner was well aware
that the robbery charge against Sepulveda was a
concoction, a mere fabrication with the sole purpose of
retaliating against Sepulveda's acts.
 Fighting within company premises

Not every fight within company premises in which

an employee is involved would automatically
warrant dismissal from service.
If the incident disturbed the peace in the work
place, or is a a breach of its discipline, it could be
serious misconduct within the meaning of Art. 282
of the Labor Code, providing for the dismissal of
employees.
 Disloyalty to the employer

In Elizalde International (Philippines) v. Daland, a sales

representative who sold products of a competitor was
validly dismissed on the ground of disloyalty.
An employer has the right to expect loyalty from his
employees as long as the employment relationship
continues. Implicit in the contract of employment is the
undertaking that the employee shall be faithful to the
interest of the employer during the term of the
employment. When an employee deliberately acquires
an interest adverse to his employer, he is disloyal, and
his discharge is justified.
 Insulting and offensive language
In Dela Cruz v. NLRC, an employee was validly dismissed
after he shouted sayang ang pagka-professional mo! and
putang ina mo at the company physician after the latter
refused to give the said employee a referral slip.
In Autobus Workers Union (AWU) vs. NLRC, an employee
was legally dismissed after calling his supervisor gago ka
and taunted the latter by saying bakit anong gusto mo, tang
ina mo.
In both cases, the dismissed employees personally
subjected their respective superiors to the foregoing verbal
abuses. The utter lack of respect for their superiors was
patent
 Theft against the Employer

An act committed by any person who, with

intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without
the latter's consent.

Convinction in a criminal case is not required to

dismiss the employee for theft.

Proof required in admnistrative proceeding is

different from that of the criminal one.
 More examples of Serious Misconduct

1)An employee who utters obsecene, insulting or

offensive words against a superior. His act is destructive
of his co-employees' morale & a violation of the
company rules & regulations;
2) A security guard who sleeps in his post;
3) Taking or using illegal substance or shabu inside the
company premises;
4) Rendering service to a business rival;
5) Theft of company property.
6) Falsification of employment records;
7) Sexual intercourse within company premises;
8) Assaulting a co-employee;
9)Fighthing within work premises when the act
adversely affects employer's interest for it
distracts other employees, disrupts operation
and creates a hostile environement;
10) Selling of competitor's products.
 ANALOGOUS

Physically assaulting a co-employee:

In Ha Yuan Restaurant v. Soria, an employee who
physically assaulted a co-employee was validly
dismissed.
 Analogous
Theft against co-employee
In Cosmos Bottling Corp. v. Fermin, an employee who stole a
co-employees cellphone was dismissed from employment on
the ground of serious misconduct. When he filed a labor
complaint, he claimed that he was incorrectly dismissed as
his conduct is not a serious misconduct against the employer.
A cause analogous to serious misconduct is a voluntary
and/or willful act or omission attesting to an employees moral
depravity. Theft committed by an employee against a person
other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is
a cause analogous to serious misconduct.
Drug use in the workplace
The Supreme Court took judicial notice of scientific
findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties
of the user. It is beyond question therefore that any
employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly
continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat
to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his
employer.
Sexual Harassment
When such moral perversity is perpetrated
against a subordinate, it provides justifiable
ground for dismissal for it is the duty of every
employer to protect its employees from over
sexed superiors.
Immorality or Moral Depravity
A cause analogous to serious misconduct is a voluntary
and/or willful act or omission attesting to an employees moral
depravity. However, as a general rule, immorality may not be
a ground for dismissing an employee unless the misconduct
is prejudicial or in some way detrimental to the employers
interests.
To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular
case must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of
the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws.
 IMMORAL CONDUCT
Immoral conduct has been defined as that
conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Such
conduct, to be a ground for dismissal, but not only
be immoral but grossly immoral.
The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or
immoral involves a two-step process:
(1) a consideration of the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; &
(2) an assessment of the said circumstances vis--vis
the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society
generally considers moral and respectable.
 Example of immorality
In one case, the employee, prior to his discharge was
holding a supervisory position. Because of his position,
he was expected to set a good example for his men to
follow and to exhibit such conduct worthy of emulation.
Instead of living up to these reasonable expectations, he
got himself a young concubine & virtually drove his family
away from the family home. The court held that his
behaviour constitutes immoral conduct and justifies his
dismissal.
A private school teacher who entered into an extra-
marital relationship with a co-teacher was validly
dismissed on grounds of immorality.
A teacher serves as an example to his pupils, especially
during their formative years and stands in loco parentis to
them. To stress their importance in our society, teachers
are given substitute and special parental authority under
our laws. Teachers must adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency. A teacher, both in his
official and personal conduct, must display exemplary
behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions
on his conduct that might be viewed irksome by ordinary
citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of
teachers, in and outside the classroom, must be beyond
reproach.
A private school teacher who entered into an extra-
marital relationship with a co-teacher was validly
dismissed on grounds of immorality.
A teacherserves as an example to his pupils, especially
during their formative years and stands in loco parentis to
them. To stress their importance in our society, teachers
are given substitute and special parental authority under
our laws. Teachers must adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency. A teacher, both in his
official and personal conduct, must display exemplary
behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions
on his conduct that might be viewed irksome by ordinary
citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of
teachers, in and outside the classroom, must be beyond
reproach.
 Cause found Inadequate
1) Where the fistcuffs were a private matter between 2
employees which had no apparent deleterious effect
on the substantial interest of the company. The
penalty of dismissal is not commensurate with the
employees' misconduct;
2) 6 employees of Tanduay Distilerry were dismissed
from eating peanuts while working. At the time of their
dismissal they had served the company for periods
ranging from 15 to 27 years, without previous
derogatory records. Besides night shift is from 3pm to
12 am with no more break after dinner.
Nestor Micosa, a laborer of IRRI, was convicted by final
judgment of the crime of homicide, The crime was
committed outside IRRI. He was however dismissed by
the managment. Is his dismissal lawful?
NO. The ground for his dismissal is not among those
enumerated under Article 282 of the LC. Neither can the
same be deemed to be analogus to the grounds
enumerated in the said Article. Furthermore, the crime
committed by Nestor is not work related. There is no
indication that Nestor has a tendecy to kill when at work
or that he posed a clear & present danger to the
company & its personnel. (International Rice Research
Institute vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 97239, May 12, 1993)
 Case 1
It was coffee break. Adam, was on line, inside the canteen to
buy coffee. He heard the canteen helper whisper to another
helper Ayan na si Adam, bakulaw na bakla & the 2 started
laughing. Out of his anger & embarassment, since may co-
workers heard the helper, Adam smashed some food items
on display & shouted invectives. He said. When his co-
employees continued staring, he felt like a candle melting &
slapped the helper. Before walking out of the canteen he
said Sino ngayon ang bakla?! Tataba! Baboy! Other
employees, who were likewsie on break, simply looked & did
not interfere. The helper lost a tooth & filed a complaint with
the HR Department. Handle and decide the case.
No. The misconduct was not connected with his
employment and the incident did not, in ay way,
disrupt the operations of the company. The
penalty of dismissal is too severe. (Aris
Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 97817,
November 10, 1994)
 Case 2
Sergio, an employee of Encantado Philippines, Inc. was
questioned by the company guard as to why he was using
somebody else's ID. Sergio flared up & shouted Wala kang
pakialam! Gusto mo ipakain ko ito sayo? When Sergio noticed
his co-employees staring at him, he left. A few minutes later
Sergio returned & remark challengingly Sino ba nagagalit?
Guard ka lang dito. Sergio began slapping the face of the guard
and before the latter can fend the blows, Sergio kicked him on
the knee which caused the guard to fall and suffer contusions.
The incident prompted the guard to file a complaint & Sergio was
required to answer. Sergio admitted his actions but explained
that he did not mean it since he was under the influence of
alcohol just having been recently ditched by his gf. Is there a just
cause for dismissing Sergio?
The acts of Sergio constitute serious misconduct
which warrants his dismissal. The fact that he
was under the influence of alcohol at the time that
he did what he did doesnot mitigate but instead
aggravates his conduct. Being under the
influence of alcohol while at work is by itself a
serious misconduct.
 Case 3
A was newly assigned to the job of stock clerk; a new
graduate with an attitude, quite lazy and stubborn.
Sometimes when his supervisor teaches him how to do
the work, his mind wanders to his upcoming beach date
with his gf. Because of his wandering mind, He
committed mistakes in posting entries in the stock card
that resulted in unmanageable inaccuracies in the data
posted in the stock cards.
This was his first infraction & there was no serious
damage to the company. Did A commit any serious
misconduct that warrants his dismissal from work?
No. The penalty of dismissal is cruel and unjst, it
is not proportionate to the gravity of the misdeed.
A was not an incorrigible offender and it does not
appear that what he did inflicted serious damage
to the company so much so that his continuance
in the service would be inimical to the employer's
interest.
 Case 4
Andrea and Paul, newly regularized employees,
were found to be falsifying their time cards. To
avoid being tardy on record, Andrea punched
Paul's time card when the latter is late and Paul
did the same for Andrea. When caught, they
reasoned that they should be given leniency
because they are just new to the company hence,
are not yet aware of the Rules & Regulations.
Can this be a valid ground for dismissal?
Yes. dismissal is in order. Falsification of time
cards constitutes serious misconduct and
dishonesty, which are just causes for the
termination of employment. The fact that it has
been committed by newly hired employees shows
the character of these persons and no employer
may rationally be expected to continue in
employment a person whose lack of morals,
respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his
employer's rules, has been exposed so early on.
 Case 5
Tinio, a Dunkin Donut cashier, was caught eating donuts and
having coffee while on his shift. He owned up to his fault and
explained that he was really hungry. He apologized and
promised that a similar incident will not happen again.
Tinio had already been penalized with suspensions (as based
on the Company's Rules & Regulations) ranging from 3-5
days for (a) product shortages; (b) missing coffee beans; (c)
habitual tardiness; (d) failure to punch out time card; (e)
negligence in inventory resulting to product oversupply; and
(f) spilling coffee on an elderly customer. He has been with
the company for 12 years already & has never committed a
major violation. DECIDE.
A repetition of the same offense for which one has
been previously disciplined and cautioned evinces
deliberateness and willful intent; it negates mere
lapse or error in judgment. Based on this
consideration, taken together with his numerous
other offenses, Dunkin Donuts hadscompelling
reasons to conclude that Tinio had become unfit
to remain in its employ.
 Case 6
JV has been employed as a cashier of Seaside Sunshine
Restaurant for 5 years now. After a surprise audit, he was
found to have incurred cash shortages on his monetary
accountability covering a period of about 5 months in the total
amount of P48,000.00 He was required to submit an
explanation. JV reasoned that his mother was suffering from
cancer and he intended to return the money as soon as he
has it. He begged for understanding and forgiveness.
As the employer, can you dismiss JV on the ground of serious
misconduct?
 Case 7
Zenaida was hired as chemist for a well-known
drug company. From rank and file she was
promoted to Manager. One day, a co-employee
saw Zenaida out on a date with the President and
CEO of the company, a married man who has 2
minor children. The co-employee decided to
report the matter to the Human Resource Manager
and asked the Manager to act on the complaint.
She even added that No wonder she quickly
rosed the ranks, she sleeps with the boss. What a
vile & immoral being Decide on the complaint.
 Case 8
Ana, Trcia and Isabel are co-employees. They
despised Bea so much that they started spreading
rumors about her. They even distributed
anonymous letters which contained words like
Bea pokpok, Bea syota ng bayan. Bea
eventually found out and of course, took offense.
She decided to elevate the matter to the
company's disciplinary committee. The matter
was passed on to you for resolution. Decide.