Week 9 - Termination of Employer (Just Causes)

Question 1

What are the just causes for termination by employer?

Answer 1

Art. 297. Termination by Employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

(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.

Question 2

Serious misconduct or willful disobedience under Art. 297

Answer 2

Art. 297. Termination by Employer - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: […]

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

Question 3

What is misconduct, and when does it become serious misconduct?

Answer 3

Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. The misconduct to e serious within the meaning of the Labor Code must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation. [PLDT v. Bolso]

Question 4

What is the quantum of evidence to support an employee’s dismissal due to serious misconduct?

Answer 4

Substantial evidence. An employee’s dismissal due to serious misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. [PLDT v. Bolso]

Question 5

Is the length of service taken into account in dismissal cases?

Answer 5

Yes, sometimes. There are cases when the length of service is an aggravating circumstance, there are also cases where the length of service is a mitigating circumstance. In PLDT v. Bolso, the court treated the length as an aggravating circumstance.

“An employee’s length of service with the company even aggravates his offense. Bolso should have been more loyal to PLDT from which he had derived his income for 15 years.”

Question 6

Does due process in administrative cases always entail a hearing?

Answer 6

No. In PLDT v. Bolso, the Court held “The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all circumstances essential.”

Question 7

What are the requisites to hold a dismissal on the ground of serious dismissal valid?

Answer 7

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. [Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. v. Bardaje]

Question 8

Are there cases where the dismissal of an employee involved in a fight is an illegal dismissal?

Answer 8

Yes. In Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. v. Bardaje, the Court held: “Although we have recognized that fighting within company premises may constitute serious misconduct, we have also held that not every fight within company premises in which an employee is involved would automatically warrant dismissal from service. […] The employer must prove by substantial evidence that accusation of serious misconduct, and that in falling to discharge the burden, the employee is deemed to have been illegally dismissed.”

Question 9

What are the requisites for a valid dismissal on the basis of willful disobedience?

Answer 9

For willful dismissal to be a valid cause for dismissal, the following twin elements must concur: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. [Micro Sales Operation Network v. NLRC]

Question 10

What happens to a union officer and a union member who participates in an illegal strike?

Answer 10

A union officer can be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike while an ordinary striking employee must have participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. [Bascon v. CA]

Art. 264(a). […] Any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission if illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.

Question 11

What is gross negligence?

Answer 11

Gross negligence implies a 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. [Chavez v. NLRC].

Question 12

When will negligence warrant a removal?

Answer 12

The negligence, to warrant removal from service, should not merely by be gross but also habitual. The single and isolated act of the petitioner’s negligence in the proper maintenance of the truck alleged by the respondents does not amount to “gross and habitual neglect” warranting dismissal. [Chavez v. NLRC]

Question 13

May absenteeism be a just cause for dismissal?

Answer 13

Yes. In Valiao v. CA, the Court stated, “habitual absenteeism without leave constitute gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee.”

Question 14

What is the totality of infractions doctrine?

Answer 14

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 him should not be taken singly and separately but in their totality. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct, and ability separate and independent of each other. [Valiao v. CA]

Question 15

What is the test of negligence?

Answer 15

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would use in the same situation? (If the answer is no then he is negligent.)

Question 16

Is there an employer-employee relationship between taxi owners and taxi drivers under the boundary system?

Answer 16

Yes. The relationship of taxi owners and taxi drivers is the same as that between jeepney owners and jeepney drivers under the boundary system. In both cases, the employer-employee relationship was deemed to exist. [Paguio Transport v. NLRC]

Question 17

Gross and habitual neglect under Art. 297

Answer 17

Art. 297. Termination by Employer - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: […]

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

Question 18

What are the twin requirements in dismissal of an employee?

Answer 18

The twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process. The employer must furnish the working with two written notices: (2) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) the other to inform him of his employer’s decision to dismiss him. As to the requirement of hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not always and indispensably in an actual hearing (applies to admin cases only).

Question 19

Fraud or willful breach [Art. 297(c)]

Answer 19

Art. 297. Termination by Employer - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: […]

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

Question 20

What should be established in cases of dismissal on the ground of fraud and willful breach of trust?

Answer 20

Substantial evidence is sufficient as long as such loss of confidence is well-fonded or if the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and her act rendered her unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of her position. It must be shown, though, that the employee concerned hold a position of trust. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized. [Santos v. San Miguel Corporation].

Question 21

What did the Supreme Court say about misappropriation of company funds as a just cause for termination?

Answer 21

Misappropriation of company funds, although the shortages had been fully restituted, is a valid ground to terminate the services of an employee of the company for loss of trust and confidence. [Santos v. San Miguel Corp.*]

*Employee encashed her checks using company funds

Question 22

When is a breach of trust willful?

Answer 22

A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. [LakPue Drug v. Belga]

*Time and again, we have recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence. However, we emphasize that such ground is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility of trust and confidence. In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be “work-related” such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer. More importantly, the loss of trust and confidence must be based on the willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.

Question 23

What is the requirement regarding the act complained of as constituting the breach of trust?

Answer 23

The act constituting the willful breach of trust and confidence must be related to the official functions of the employee. [PNCC v. Matias]

Question 24

What are the guidelines to validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code?

Answer 24

In order to validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the following guidelines must be followed:

1. The loss or 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;
4. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith; and
5. The employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence. [Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Kapisanan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca-Cola]

Question 25

Will the subsequent conviction of an employee for a crime bar reinstatement even after the decision granting reinstatement had become final and executory?

Answer 25

Yes. Once a judgment has become final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed except only for the correction of clerical error or where supervening events render its execution impossible or unjust. In Heirs of Francisco Guballa Sr. v. CA, the Court held that “the power of the NLRC to issue a writ of execution carries with it the right to look into the correctness of the execution of the decision and to consider supervening events that may affect such execution.” [Sampaguita Garments Corp. v. NLRC]

Question 26

May the attitude problem of an employee be a just cause for termination?

Answer 26

Yes. An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the company for he can upset and strain the working environment. Without the necessary teamwork and synergy, the organization cannot function well. Thus, management has the prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect its organization. When personal differences between employees and management affect the work environment, the peace of the company is affected. Thus, an employee’s attitude problem is a valid ground for his termination. [Heavylift Manila, Inc. v. CA]

Question 27

Does an arrest or detention due to a charge for a crime warrant dismissal?

Answer 27

No. In the case of Standard Electric Manufacturing Corp. v. Standard Electric Employees Union, the Court held it was invalid for the company to dismiss the employee who was detained for a charge of rape because the employee was subsequently released and he was even acquitted of the charge.

Question 28

What are the two requisites for abandonment of work?

Answer 28

To constitute as abandonment, two requisites must concur: (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 as manifested by some overt acts, with the second element being the more determinitive factor. Abandonment asa just ground for dismissal requires clear, willful, deliberate, and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.

Question 29

What is the definition of abandonment?

Answer 29

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer under Art. 282 of the Labor Code, which enumerates just causes for termination by the employer.

Question 30

Is absenteeism enough to dismiss an employee for abandonment of work?

Answer 30

No. In City Trucking, Inc. v. Antonio Balajadia, the Court held that “absenteeism per se is not an overt act which would prove an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue payment.”

Question 31

What constitutes immorality as a just analogous cause for dismissal?

Answer 31

To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular must be holistically considered and evaluated in the light of prevailing norms of conduct and the applicable law. [Chua-Qua v. Clave]

Question 32

Does private sexual relations between two unmarried adults warrant liability for illicit behavior?

Answer 32

No. In Innocente v. St. Vincent Foundation, the Court reiterated that “mere private sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults, even if the relations result in pregnancy or miscarriage out of wedlock and without more, are not enough to warrant liability for illicit behavior.”

Question 33

Is gross inefficiency an analogous cause?

Answer 33

Yes. Jurisprudence instructs that gross inefficiency is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty under Article 297 (e) in relation to Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code. [Telephilippines, Inc. v. Jacolbe]

Question 34

What does gross inefficiency mean?

Answer 34

In Buiser v Leogardo, the Court explained that such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or work quotas by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. Further, in San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, the Court held that an employer is entitled to prescribe reasonable work standards, rules, and regulations necessary for the conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement them, and to assure that the same would be complied with.

Question 35

Is habitual tardiness a just cause for termination?

Answer 35

Yes. In Sy v. Neat, the Court held “Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every employee, whether in government or private sector, whereas habitual tardiness is a serious offense that may very well constitute gross or habitual neglect of duty, a just cause to dismiss a regular employee. ”

Question 36

What are the requisites for insubordination?

Answer 36

“Insubordination” requires that the orders, regulations or instructions of the employer or representative must be (a) reasonable and lawful; (b) sufficiently known to the employee; (c) in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge; and (d) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. (Sy v. Neat)