Just Causes COVERAGE

Just causes cover all employees, regardless

SUMMARY of rank or status, whether rank-and-file,
● Just causes are grounds for supervisory, managerial in rank, as well as
termination of employment due to whether regular, probationary, casual,
employee violations. project, seasonal, or fixed-term.
● The employer is justified dismissing THE JUST CAUSES
an employee for just cause.
● There are standards for each just The Labor Code provides for the following
cause set or prescribed by Supreme just causes:
Court Decisions or Jurisprudence, 1. Serious misconduct
as well as DOLE regulations. 2. Willfull and disobedience of a lawful
● There are analogous causes to just order
causes found in Supreme Court 3. Gross and habitual neglect of duty
Decisions or Jurisprudence. 4. Fraud
● If there is no just cause in the 5. Willful breach of trust
termination of employment, the 6. Commission of a crime against the
employer may be held liable for person of the employer or any
illegal dismissal. immeidate member of his family or
his duly authorized representative
CONCEPT 7. Analagous causes
“Just causes” – refer to “those instances
enumerated under Article 297 [Termination A. STANDARDS FOR JUST CAUSES
by Employer] of the Labor Code, as Standards have been set or
amended. These are causes directly prescribed for each just cause
attributable to the fault or negligence of the through Supreme Court Decisions
employee.” (Section 4 [b], Rule I-A, Ibid.) and DOLE regulations, such as
DOLE Department Order No. 147,
Otherwise stated, just causes are grounds series of 2015 (DOLE D.O. 147-15).
for termination of employment.
CONSEQUENCES IF NO JUST CAUSE
They are called just causes because the If there is no just cause in the termination of
termination of employment is justified due to employment of an employee, the employer
an employee’s actions, behavior, or shall be held liable for illegal dismissal.
omission, either of which resulted in a Only the absence of a just cause for the
serious or grave violation of the law, termination of employment can make the
employment contract, company policies, dismissal of an employee illegal. (Serrano v.
collective bargaining agreement, and any NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, 27 January 2000)
other employment agreement.

In these situations, and in the exercise of its

management prerogative, the employer is
justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal
on the erring employee.
 ● Separation pay is due to employees
If the employee’s separation is without who have be separated due to
cause, instead of being given separation authorized causes, except for
pay, he should be reinstated. In either case, closing or cessation of business due
whether he is reinstated or only granted to serious financial losses.
separation pay, he should be paid full
backwages if he has been laid off without CONCEPT
written notice at least 30 days in advance. Authorized causes are grounds for
(Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, 27 separation of employment.
January 2000)
It is called authorized causes because the
On the other hand, with respect to employer is authorized to separate
dismissals for cause under Art. 282, if it is employees from their employment due to a
shown that the employee was dismissed for legitimate business reason or a requirement
any of the just causes mentioned in said Art. by law or regulations.
282, then, in accordance with that article, he
should not be reinstated. However, he must In these situations, and in the exercise of its
be paid backwages from the time his management prerogative, the employer is
employment was terminated until it is justified letting go of the employee who is
determined that the termination of not at fault and thus given a separation pay.
employment is for a just cause because the
failure to hear him before he is dismissed
renders the termination of his employment COVERAGE
without legal effect. (Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. Authorized causes cover all employees,
No. 117040, 27 January 2000) regardless of rank or status, whether
rank-and-file, supervisory, managerial in
REFERENCES rank, or regular, probationary, casual,
1. 1987 Philippine Constitution project, seasonal, or fixed-term.
2. Book VI, PD No. 442, aka Labor
Code of the Philippines THE AUTHORIZED CAUSES
3. DOLE Department Order No, 147, A. LABOR CODE
Series of 2015 The Labor Code provides for the
following authorized causes:
Authorized Causes 1. Installation of labor-saving
devices
SUMMARY 2. Redundancy
● Authorized causes are grounds for 3. Retrenchment
separating an employee through no 4. Closing or cessation of
fault of theirs. business operations
● There are standards for each 5. Disease
authorized cause set or prescribed 6. Permanent lay-off (After
by Jurisprudence or Supreme Court 6-month work suspension)
Decisions, as well as DOLE
regulations.
B. JURISPURDENCE OR SUPREME months (Department Order No. 174,
COURT DECISIONS series of 2017).

Jurisprudence or Supreme Court STANDARDS FOR AUTHORIZED

Decisions provide for the following CAUSES
authorized causes: Standards have been set or prescribed for
each authorized cause through Supreme
1) Reinstatement is no longer Court Decisions and DOLE regulations,
feasible to a former position or to a such as DOLE Department Order No. 147,
substantially equivalent position for series of 2015 (DOLE D.O. 147-15).
reasons not attributable to the fault
of the employer, as when the SEPARATION PAY
reinstatement ordered by a Employees who have been separated from
competent authority cannot be employment are entitled to separation pay,
implemented due to closure or except for closing or cessation of business
cessation of operations of the due to serious financial losses.
establishment/employer, or the
position to which he or she is to be For more detailed discussions, refer to
reinstated no longer exists and there Separation Pay.
is no substantially equivalent
position in the establishment to
which he or she can be assigned CONSEQUENCE IF NO AUTHORIZED
(Gaco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104690, CAUSE
23 February 1994); and A. REINSTATED
B. FULL BACKWAGES
2) Strained relations. If the employee’s separation is
without cause, instead of being
C. DOLE REGULATIONS given separation pay, he should be
reinstated. In either case, whether
DOLE Regulations provide for the he is reinstated or only granted
following additional authorized separation pay, he should be paid
causes: full backwages if he has been laid off
without written notice at least 30
1) Lack of service assignment of days in advance. (Serrano v. NLRC,
security guard for a continuous G.R. No. 117040, 27 January 2000)
period of six (6) month (Department
Order No. 150, series of 2016); REFERENCES
1. 1987 Philippine Constitution
2) Lack of service assignment of 2. Book VI, PD No. 442 aka Labor
security guard by reason of age Code of the Philippines
(Ibid); and, 3. Book VI, Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code
3) Lack of re-assignment of 4. DOLE Department Order No. 147,
deployed personnel after three (3) Series of 2015
LINK (ABOVE):
[Link] 26 (Philippine Sheet Metal Workers’ Union
e-process/ (AUTHORIZED) v. CIR, 83 Phil 433)
[Link]
[Link] gr_l-2028_1949.html
ess/ (JUST)
27 (Dole Philippines Inc. et. Al. v. NLRC et.
Standards on Just Causes (CASES al.)
LINKS) [Link]
gr_120009_2001.html
20 (Technol Eight Philippines Corporation v.
NLRC and Denis Amular, G.R. No. 187605, 28 (Criteria)Asian Alcohol Corporation v.
Aril 13, 2010) NLRC, G.R. No. 131108, March 25, 1999
[Link] [Link]
gr_187605_2010.html gr_131108_1999.html

21 (Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 29 General Milling Corporation v. Violeta L.

G.R. No. 1222468, September 3, 1998) Viajar, G.R. No. 181738
[Link] [Link]
gr_122468_1998.html gr_181738_2013.html

22 (Labor et. Al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110388, 30 (San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R.
September 14, 1995) No. 99266, March 2, 1999)
[Link] [Link]
gr_110388_1995.html gr_99266_1999.html

23 (Top Form Mfg. Co., Inc v. NLRC, G.R. 31 (Proof of actual losses) Balasabas v.
65706, December 11, 1992) NLRC, [Link]. 85286, August 24, 1992;
[Link] [Link]
gr_65706_1992.html gr_85286_1992.html

24 China City Restaurant Corp. v. NLRC, Central Azucarerra dela Carlota v. NLRC,
217 SCRA 443; Midas Touch v. NLRC, G.R. G.R. No. 100092, December 29, 1995
No. 111639, July 29, 1996) [Link]
[Link] gr_100092_1995.html
r_111639_1996.html
32 (Cheniver Deco Print Technics
25 (M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks v. NLRC, Corporation v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 122876,
117 SCRA 544 [1982]) February 17, 2000]
[Link] [Link]
gr_81493_1990.html gr_122876_2000.html
33 (Maya Farms Employees Organization v.
Standards on Authorized Causes NLRC, G.R. No. 106256, December 28,
(CASES LINKS) 1994)
[Link]
gr_106256_1994.html

Book 6 - Post Employment

[Link]
e-book-6/