just causes

Just CausesValid Grounds for Dismissing an Employee

29 October 2016

Serious MisconductStandards to be a valid ground for termination:1. There must be misconduct;2. The misconduct must be of such grave and

aggravated character;3. It must relate to the performance of the employee’s

duties; and4. There must be showing that the employee becomes

unfit to continue working for the employer.

Citation: DOLE D.O. 147-15

Case LawImasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon (2014)• The employer (manufacturer) dismissed employees (welders)

who were caught in the act having sexual intercourse by a security guard who submitted a handwritten report of the incident.

HELD: The employees were validly dismissed.• The employees infraction amounts to serious misconduct.• “To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and

meaning of... the Labor Code, the employee’s misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.”

Citation: Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, G.R. No. 194884, 22 October 2014

Willful Disobedience (Insubordination)Standards to be a valid ground for termination:1. There must be disobedience or insubordination;2. The disobedience or insubordination must be willful or

intentional characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude;

3. The order violated must be reasonable, lawful, and made known to the employee; and

4. The order must pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to discharge.


Case LawNuez v. PHILCOMSAT (1994)• The employer (telecommunication) dismissed the employee (driver) who

refused twice on the same day to drive senior officers of the company. He said: "Ayaw kong magmaneho dahil may bibilhin ako sa Lagundi. Kung gusto mo yong 'loyalist' ang magmaneho."

HELD: The employee was validly dismissed.• “The existence of an emergency situation is irrelevant to the charge of willful

disobedience; an opposite principle would allow a worker to shield himself under his self-designed concept of "non-emergency situation" to deliberately defy the directive of the employer. Neither is the resulting damage vital. The heart of the charge is the crooked and anarchic attitude of the employee towards his employer. Damage aggravates the charge but its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee's liability. The fact that a replacement driver was able to perform the task could neither alter the gravity of the charge, this responsibility being personal to the perpetrator...”

Citation: Nuez v. Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), G.R. No. 107574, 28 December 1994

Gross & Habitual Neglect of DutiesStandards to be a valid ground for termination:1. There must be neglect of duty; and2. The negligence must be both gross and habitual in

character.


Case LawCavite Apparel, Incorporated v. Marquez (2013)• The employer (manufacturer) dismissed the employee for gross and

habitual neglect after the latter incurred 4 unauthorized absences.HELD: The employer was liable for illegal dismissal.• “Cavite Apparel’s position fails to convince us [the Supreme Court]. Based

on what we see in the records, there simply cannot be a case of gross and habitual neglect of duty against Michelle. Even assuming that she failed to present a medical certificate for her sick leave on May 8, 2000, the records are bereft of any indication that apart from the four occasions when she did not report for work, Michelle had been cited for any infraction since she started her employment with the company in 1994. Four absences in her six years of service, to our mind, cannot be considered gross and habitual neglect of duty, especially so since the absences were spread out over a six-month period.”

Citation: Cavite Apparel, Incorporated v. Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, 06 February 2013

Fraud or Willful Breach of TrustStandards to be a valid ground for termination: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 committee against the employer or his/her

representative; and4. It must be in connection with the employees’ work.


Case LawP.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Velayo (2014)• The employer (pawnshop) dismissed the employee (cashier) for

breach of trust after the latter failed to record a P540.00 pera padala transaction, which was discovered via a branch audit.

HELD: The employer was liable for illegal dismissal.• “A cashier’s inability to safeguard and account for missing cash

is sufficient cause to dismiss her.”• “It would be most unfair to require an employer to continue

employing as its cashiera person whom it reasonably believes is no longer capable of giving full and whole hearted trustworthiness in the stewardship of company funds.”

Citation: Cavite Apparel, Incorporated v. Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, 06 February 2013

Loss of ConfidenceStandards to be a valid ground for termination:1. There must be an act, omission, or concealment;2. The act, omission or concealment justifies the loss of trust and

confidence of the employer to the employee;3. The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and

confidence;4. The loss of trust and confidence should not be simulated;5. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are

improper, illegal, or unjustified and6. It must be genuine and not a mere afterthought to justify an

earlier action taken in bad faith.


Case LawAlps Transportation v. Rodriguez (2013)• The employer (bus company) refused to readmit the employee (bus

conductor) due to loss of trust and confidence after an irregularity report showed that bus fares were collected from passengers without him issuing tickets.

• While the employee was hired by a third-party, it was found out that such was a labor-contractor and hence the bus company was considered the employer.

HELD: The employer was liable for illegal dismissal.• The irregularity report contained accusations without additional proof.

“An accusation that is not substantiated will not ripen into a holding that there is just cause for dismissal.”

• Thus, termination due to just cause was not proven.

Citation: ALPS Transportation v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 186732, 13 June 2013

Commission of a Crime or OffenseStandards to be a valid ground for termination:1. There must be an act or omission

punishable/prohibited by law; and2. The act or omission was committed by the employee

against the person of the employer, any immediate member of his/her family, or his/her duly authorized representative.


Case LawInternational Rice Research Institute v. Micosa (1993)• The employer (international organization) dismissed an employee (laborer)

who was found guilty for homicide after stabbing to death another at a beer house.

HELD: The employer was liable for illegal dismissal.• “… the commission of a crime by the employee under Article 282 (d) refer

to an offense against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative.”

• “In the case at bar, the commission of the crime of homicide was outside the perimeter of the IRRI complex, having been committed in a restaurant after office hours and against a non-IRRI employee. Thus, the conviction of Micosa for homicide was not work-related, his misdeed having no relation to his position as laborer and was not directed or committed against IRRI or its authorized agent.”

Citation: International Rice Research Institute v. Micosa, G.R. No. 97239, 12 May 1993

Analogous CausesStandards to be a valid ground for termination:1. There must be an act or omission similar to those

specified just causes; and2. The act or omission must be voluntary and/or willful

on the part of the employees.

Important: No act or omission shall be considered as analogous cause unless expressly specified in the company rules and regulations or policies.


Case LawInternational School Manila v. ISAE (2014)• The employer (international school) dismissed an employee

(Spanish language teacher) for gross and habitual neglect after failing on her evaluations, which the latter contested claiming she had been doing her work.

HELD: The employee was validly dismissed.• “’Gross inefficiency’ is closely related to ‘gross neglect,’ for both

involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his business.

• The employer “sufficiently proved the charge of gross inefficiency, which warranted the dismissal of [the employee] from the School.”

Citation: International School Manila v. International School Alliance of Educators, G.R. No. 167286, 05 February 2014

For more information:

Labor Law ComplianceBest Practices for Human Resource

www.laborlaw.ph

We value feedback. For comments or permission to use slides, send us an email: [email protected].

http://www.laborlaw.ph/

Brought to you by:

JDP Consulting Ltd. Co.Empowering leaders with legal compliance

We focus on Small and Medium Enterprises.www.jdpconsulting.ph

Labor & Employment, Negotiations & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Commercial Litigation, and Legal Compliance.

http://www.jdpconsulting.ph/

Seminars & Workshops• Join us for learning sessions on

these topics:• HR Legal Compliance• Labor Unions • Company Policies• Labor Complaints• Outsourcing Manpower• Disciplinary Actions

Visit: www.cpdc.phVenue of Seminars & Workshop:BGC Ascott, Taguig City