Summary of Jurisprudence relating to Grounds of Termination Based on Just Cause under the Labor Code of the Philippines

 

Ground	Action	Conditions/Observations
Serious Misconduct	Violation of the conditions of leave of absence	Violation must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant (Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba vs. Villas, G.R. No. 137795, March 26, 2003)
Serious Misconduct	Pregnancy out of wedlock	1.                  Cannot be considered as disgraceful and immoral conduct when the father and mother of the child have no impediment to marry each other (Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015)   2.                  Public and secular morality should determine the prevailing norms of conduct, not religious morality. (Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015)
Serious Misconduct	Use of insulting and offensive language	1.                  The utter lack of respect for the employee’s superior was patent (Autobus Workers’ Union (AWU) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117453 June 26, 1998)   2.                  The display of insolent and disrespectful behavior is in utter disregard of the time and place of its occurrence such as when the incident happened in from of the company’s employees, their families as well as company clients and guests. (Benitez vs. Sta. Fe Moving & Relocation, G.R. No. 208163, April 20, 2015)
Serious Misconduct	Theft	1. Company policies must be reasonable and lawful, sufficiently made known to

 

		the employee and evidently connected to his work. (St. Lukes Medical Center vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015)   2. Theft of funds or property not owned by employer is not a ground to terminate. (Villamor Golf Club v. Pehid, G.R. No. 166152, October 4, 2005)
Serious Misconduct	Use and possession of drugs	Drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user hence the use of such in the company’s premises and during working hours constitutes serious misconduct (Jose, JR. v. Michaelmar Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 169606, November 27, 2009)
Serious Misconduct	Immoral act committed beyond office hours	The harassment of an employee by a co-employee within the company premises even after office hours is a work-related matter considering that the peace of the company is thereby affected (Navarro III v. Damasco, G.R. No. 101875, July 14, 1995)
Serious Misconduct	Disrespectful conduct	Disrespectful conduct is not serious misconduct if provoked by superior or employer (Golden Thread Knitting Industries v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119157, March 11, 1999)
Serious Misconduct	Gambling within company’s premises	The use of company’s time and premises for gambling activities constitutes serious misconduct (Universal Canning Inc. et. al v. CA, G.R. No. 215047, November 23, 2016)

 

Serious Misconduct	Intoxication	Only when intoxication renders the employee incapable of doing his work (Sanyo Travel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121449, October 2, 1997)
Serious Misconduct	Sleeping while on duty	Only for those jobs whose duty necessitates that they be awake and watchful at all times inasmuch as their functions is to protect the company from pilferage or loss (Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v.      Court      of      Industrial Relations, 15 SCRA 660)
Serious Misconduct	Eating while at work	Dismissal is too harsh a penalty for eating while at work (Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 73352, December 6, 1995)
Serious Misconduct	Contracting work in competition with employer	The lack of resulting damage was unimportant, because "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. (Lopez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 167385, December 13, 2005)
Serious misconduct	Immorality	Only when the immoral conduct is prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the employer (Santos, Jr. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115795, March 6, 1998)
Serious misconduct	Fighting within company premises	Only the instigator or aggressor and not the victim who was constrained to defend himself should be dismissed. (Garcia v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116568, September 3, 1999)

 

Serious misconduct	Sexual intercourse inside company premises	Constitutes serious misconduct even the commission is outside working hours (Echevarria v. Venutek Medika Inc, G.R. No. 169231, February 15, 2007)
Serious misconduct	Language used in letterexplanation	If the language used is found to be grossly discourteous in content and tenor (Nissan Motor Phils, Inc v. Angelo, G.R. No. 164181, September 14, 2011)
Serious misconduct	Tested positive during drug test	To justify termination, the drug test must be conducted by authorized drug testing center (AER v. PUMAER, G.R.No. 160192, July 13, 2011)
Serious misconduct	Organizing a credit union by employees in a bank	If it is highly irregular and clearly in conflict with the bank’s business (Aboc v. MTBC, GR Nos. 170542-43, December 13, 2010)
Serious misconduct	Act of falsification	The act of falsification and fraud must be inexcusable. (San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82467, June 29, 1989)
Serious misconduct	Romantic relationship with co-employee	Only when it affects the performance of employee’s duties and has become unfit to continue working for it, whether for the same position or otherwise. (Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children Aging, G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Leaving workplace early	Must be motivated by any wanton desire to transgress company policy (Bookmedia Press Inc v. Brizuela, G.R. No. 213009, July 17, 2019)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Making false accusation against superior	The employer's rules, instructions or commands, in order to be a ground for discharge on the score of

 

		disobedience, must be reasonable and lawful, must be known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties for which his services were engaged hence making false allegations in complaint does not constitute insubordination. (Petron Corp v. NLRC, G.R. No. 154532, October 27, 2006)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Failure to answer memorandum to explain	1.                  Must show a wrongful and perverse attitude to defy the reasonable orders which undoubtedly pertain to duties as an employee. (Ace Promotion and Marketing Corp. v. Ursabia, G.R. No. 171703, September 22, 2006)   2.                  Another notice is required in case of termination on the ground of failure to answer memorandum to explain (Ace Promotion and Marketing Corp. v. Ursabia, G.R. No. 171703, September 22, 2006)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Refusal to undergo random drug testing	The utter lack of reason or justification for the refusal to comply with the directive to submit to a drug test gives rise to the impression that their non-compliance is deliberate. (Kakampi and its Members v. Kingsport Express and Logistic, G.R. No. 194813, April 25, 2012)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Refusal to render overtime to meet production deadline	Refusal to provide overtime work despite knowledge that there is a production deadline that needs to be met, and that without him, the offset machine operator, no further printing can be had, shows his wrongful and perverse mental attitude; thus, there is

 

		willfulness warranting dismissal. (R.B. Michael Press v. Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Refusal to comply with lawful transfer	The order of transfer must be reasonable and lawful. There must be no demotion involved, or even diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges. (San Miguel Corporation v. Pontillas, G.R. No. 155178, May 7, 2008)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Refusal to perform additional duties on different occasions	The commission of three alleged acts of insubordination committed on three separate dates constitutes only a single continued defiance of the company’s lawful order. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. IBM Local I, G.R. No. 169967, November 23, 2016)
Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders	Refusal to report to the office for administrative investigation	Insubordination does not arise if the refusal to report to office is to attend the administrative investigation. It is a mere waiver of the right to procedural due process. (Jinky Sta. Isabel v. Perla Compania de Seguros, G.R. No. 219430, November 7, 2016)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Habitual tardiness	Even in the absence of a written company rule defining gross and habitual neglect of duties, respondent’s repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time warrants dismissal from the service. (Mansion Printing Center vs. Bitara, Jr., G.R. No. 168120, January 25, 2012)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Failure to update superior on the progress of the project	There must be an apparent neglect in the obligation to maintain constant communication with superior to ensure that the work is up to

 

		par. (Reyes-Rayel vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings, G.R. No. 174893, July 11, 2012)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Failure to focus CCTV cameras on different areas of hospital	A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. (St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc v. Notario, G.R.No. 152166, October 20, 2010)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Neglect in the proper maintenance of the truck of the company	Negligence must be so gross which implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. The negligence, to warrant removal from service, should not merely be gross but also habitual. (Chavez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Issuing falsified bank guarantee	Only when there is a repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. (Premiere Development Bank v. Mantal, G.R. No. 167716, March 23, 2006)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Allowing a student to join school activity despite having an unsigned permit form	The purpose of a permit form is precisely to ensure that the parents have allowed their child to join the school activity involved. Respondent cannot simply ignore this by resorting to assumptions.    By leaving her pupils in the swimming pool, respondent displayed an "inexcusable lack of foresight and precaution.

 

		Negligence is a question of fact. (School of the Holy Spirit of QC v. Taguiam, G.R. No. 165565, July 14, 2008)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Non-completion of the documentary requirements in the opening of bank accounts pursuant to bank’s internal procedures	As the banking industry is impressed with public interest, all bank personnel are burdened with a high level of responsibility insofar as care and diligence in the custody and management of funds are concerned. (Dycoco v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 188271, August 16, 2010)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Failure to confirm and validate information in credit applications for a long period of time	No negligence if the act alleged to be so is in accordance with standing company practice. (Ramos v. BPI Family Savings Bank, G.R. No. 203186, December 4, 2013)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Encashing two personal checks without proper authorization	No negligence if the act is in accordance with management-sanctioned deviations from the company policy. (Llosa-Tan v. Silahis International Hotel, G.R. No. 77457, February 5, 1990)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Tardiness or absenteeism	Authorized absences is not a ground to terminate employment. (Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111905, July 31, 1995)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Four absences without official leave	Four absences cannot be considered habitual. The totality of infractions or number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on the erring employee. (Cavite Apparel v. Michelle Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, February 6, 2013)

 

Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Loss of hospital equipment	Before the petitioner could be held liable for gross and habitual negligence of duty, respondents must clearly show that part of her duty as a Nurse Supervisor was to be the custodian of hospital equipment and machineries within her area of responsibility. Yet, there was no evidence submitted that substantially proved that the respondents had entrusted to her the custody of such property. (Casco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 200571, February 19, 2018)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties	Failure to observe proper safety precautions during mooring operations	Accident must be willfully or deliberately caused by the employee or that he repeatedly committed mistakes in the performance of his duties (Evic Human Resource Management, Inc., Free Bulkers S.A. et. al. vs. Rogelio Panahon, G.R. No. 206890  July 31, 2017)
Abandonment of Work	Filing of a case to pre-empt investigation of the administrative case	The employee was deemed to have abandoned her job because of the belated filing of the illegal dismissal case which was only a ploy to prevent her employer from taking further action on her case. (Intertranz Container Lines Inc. v Bautista, G.R. No. 187693)
Abandonment of Work	When what is prayed for in the complaint is separation pay and it was only in the position paper that reinstatement was prayed for	Petitioner and the other complainants’ inconsistency in their stand is also shown by the fact that in the complaint form which they personally filled up and filed with the NLRC, they only asked for payment of separation pay and other monetary claims. They

 

		did not ask for reinstatement. It is only in their Position Paper later prepared by their counsel that they asked for reinstatement. This is an indication that petitioner and the other complainants never had the intention or desire to return to their jobs. (Calipay v NLRC, G.R. No. 166411)
Abandonment of Work	An employee who failed to report for work after the expiration of the duly approved leave of absence	The employee was on leave for a whole year which she sought to be extended but was left unheeded, but instead was advised to return to duty due to the unqualified prohibition contained in Sec. 33, Rule XVI of the Civil Service Rules, namely: “Under no circumstances shall leave without pay be granted for more than one year”, but still did not go to work. (Ramo v Elefano, G.R. No. L-55629)
Abandonment of Work	An employee who failed to comply with the order for his reinstatement	As long as the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed worker or employee has not been carried out he can seek employment or work anywhere, including in a foreign country. Surely, his departure from the Philippines for such purpose should not constitute a waiver of his right to r +63einstatement; it is only if he unjustifiably or unreasonably refuses to report for work with his former employer after his reinstatement has been ordered or after his employer has offered to reinstate him pursuant to the judgment the court that he could be considered as having

 

		renounced such right. (East Asiatic v CIR, G.R. L-29068)
Abandonment of Work	An employee who, after being transferred to a new assignment, did not report for work anymore	The employee was transferred by the floor manager of the theater from the day shift to the night shift, and at the same time was assigned from the Esquire Theatre to the Savoy Theatre. He asked respondent that the charged be recalled, but his request was denied. Evidently he disliked the new assignment, since he did not report for work beginning August 25. After three days he was dismissed on August 28. (Castillo v CIR, G.R. No. L26124 and L-32725)
Abandonment of Work	An employee who deliberately absented from work without leave or permission from employer for the purpose of looking for a job elsewhere	Concern for labor should not extend to allowing employees to abandon their work at will and then later demand that they be reinstated. There is a showing that Sergio Sinday left his work without leave for the purpose of seeking a better employment. It was only when he failed to find another employment that he sought reinstatement with the petitioner. The petitioner was fully justified in refusing to reinstate Sergio Sinday after he had abandoned his work to look for a better job. (Sandoval Shipyard v Clave, G.R. No. L-49875)
Abandonment of Work	When the employee absented from work to evade arrest and ward off the long arm of the law	For unexplained absence to constitute abandonment, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning.21 For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be

 

		present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employeremployee relationship, which is the more determinative factor and is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work.   The petitioner’s failure to answer properly the private respondents’ letters sufficient indicium that he was no longer interested in returning for work. Without doubt, the intention is manifest. Lastly, his reason for not reporting for work cannot be considered valid nor justifiable. (Camua, Jr. v NLRC, G.R. No. 158731)
Abandonment of Work	The fact that an employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal is not by itself sufficient indicator he had no intention of deserting his employment since the totality of his antecedent acts palpably display the contrary.	The employee filed for illegal dismissal while he was still on leave, and he claims that he was constructively dismissed when he was not allowed to enter the employer’s premises. However, he was still receiving salary and even filed for leave of absence beyond the date when he claimed he was constructively dismissed.    These circumstances, taken together, lead us to conclude that PRRM did not terminate Pulgar’s employment. On the contrary, what appears from the evidence is that it was Pulgar himself who terminated his employment with PRRM when he filed an illegal dismissal complaint against the organization while

 

		he was on leave. (Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement v Pulgar, G.R. No. 169227)
Abandonment of Work	An employee who absented without filing a leave of absence to run errands	The substantive aspect for a valid dismissal provides that to constitute abandonment of work, two (2) requisites must concur: (a) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without justifiable reason; and (b) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts.    Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is not enough to amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is a matter of intention; it cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.   Indeed, an employee who loses no time in protesting his layoff cannot by any reasoning be said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus, negating the employer’s charge of abandonment.

 

Abandonment of Work	Filing a complaint for regularization which was then changed to a complaint for illegal dismissal	As a rule, the employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a valid and just cause. In this case, the respondents failed to prove any such cause for the petitioner’s dismissal. They insinuated that the petitioner abandoned his job.    To constitute abandonment, these two factors must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship.    Obviously, the petitioner did not intend to sever his relationship with the respondent company for at the time that he allegedly abandoned his job, the petitioner just filed a complaint for regularization, which was forthwith amended to one for illegal dismissal. A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement. (Chavez v NLRC, G.R. No. 146530)
Abandonment of Work	Failure of the employees to report to work because they were not allowed to enter the employer’s premises	For this cause to prosper, petitioners should have proved (1) that the failure to report for work was without justifiable reason, and (2) respondents’ intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as shown by some overt acts.

 

		Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof. On respondents’ non-reporting for work, petitioners failed to rebut respondents’ claim that they were denied entry to their work area. Further, petitioners fail to bring to our attention any overt acts of respondents showing clear intention to sever their employment relationship with petitioners. (Pasig Cylinder MFG., Corp., v Rollo, G.R. No. 173631)
Abandonment of Work	Employees not reporting to work for “quite some time”	The notice required, as elaborated upon in our decision in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., v. NLRC, actually consists of two parts to be separately served on the employee, to wit: (1) notice to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) subsequent notice to inform him of the employer's decision to dismiss him.   This requirement is not a mere technicality but a requirement of due process to which every employee is entitled to insure that the employer's prerogative to dismiss or layoff is not abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner. This rule is clear and unequivocal and in applying it to this case the NLRC, far from acting in excess of its jurisdiction, acted according to law. (Kingsize Manufacturing Corp., v NLRC, G.R. No. 110452-54)

 

Abandonment of Work	Frequently absenting from work because of subcontracting for another company	Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention          to         sever             the employer-employee relationship             with     private respondent. (Agabon v NLRC, G.R. No. 158693)
Abandonment of Work	Being placed on a floating status	The company evidently placed Malig-on on floating status after being relieved as janitress in a client’s workplace. But, as the Court has repeatedly ruled, such act of "off-detailing" Malig-on was not the equivalent of dismissal so long as her floating status did not continue beyond a reasonable time. But, when it ran up to more than six months, the company may be considered to have constructively dismissed her from work. (Malig-on v Equitable General Services, Inc., G.R. No. 185269)
Abandonment of Work	An employee absenting  from work in order to take care of his wife who had a nervous breakdown	Granting that petitioner filed the complaint for illegal dismissal six (6) months after his termination, the same should not be interpreted as an indicium on his part to permanently cut his working ties with respondent company. Under the law, petitioner has four (4) years within which to institute his action for illegal dismissal. (Pare v NLRC, G.R. No. 128957)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Falsification of time cards	The employees falsified their time cards by punching in dates on which they did not report to work, to make it look like they did. Their acts constituted dishonesty and serious misconduct, lawful

 

		grounds for their dismissal under Art. 282, sub-pars. (a) and (c), of the Labor Code. (San Miguel Corporation v NLRC, G.R. No. 82467)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Failure to deposit collection	A boutique-in-charge, who ordinarily is not allowed to handle cashiering, interfered with cashiering tasks and failed to deposit the money to the bank of the employer, which constitutes as ground for dismissal for fraud. (Aldeguer & Co. v Tomboc, G.R. No. 147633
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Demanding a certain amount from a contractor for every work order she would obtain from the employer for said contractor	In fine, whether petitioner demanded the money from the contractor or it was voluntarily given is immaterial. The fact that she accepted money from one of the employer’s contractors has cast doubt on her integrity. The fact that the employer did not suffer losses from the dishonesty of the petitioner because of their timely discovery does not excuse the latter from any culpability. (Villanueva v NLRC, G.R. No. 129413)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Unauthorized encashment	It is not material that they did not "misappropriate any amount of money, nor incur any shortage relative to the funds in their possession." (Central Pangasinan Electric Coop., Inc. v Macaraeg, G.R. No. 145800)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Misrepresentation and deceit in the conduct of sale	The fact that petitioner failed to show it suffered losses in revenue as a consequence of private respondent’s questioned act is immaterial. The fact that respondent attempted to deprive

 

		petitioner of its lawful revenue is tantamount to fraud against the company, which warrants dismissal from the service. (Diamond Motors Corporation v CA, G.R. No. 151981)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	A director for manufacturing delivered dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude	Petitioner, in the present case, was L&T’s CHR Director for Manufacturing. As such, she was directly responsible for managing her own departmental staff. It is therefore without question that the CHR Director for Manufacturing is a managerial position saddled with great responsibility. Because of this, petitioner must enjoy the full trust and confidence of her superiors. Not only that, she ought to know that she is "bound by more exacting work ethics" and should live up to this high standard of responsibility. However, petitioner delivered dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude which constitute sufficient reasons for an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. (Reyes-Rayel v Philippine Luen Thai Holdings, G.R. 174893)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Anomalies in the branch a manager manages	On the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, petitioners may be held liable for negligence in the performance of their managerial duties, unless petitioners can positively show that they were not involved. Their position

 

		requires a high degree of responsibility that necessarily includes unearthing of fraudulent and irregular activities. As long as the employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the managerial employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, or the nature of his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position, the managerial employee can be dismissed. (Muaje-Tuazon v Wenphil Corp., G.R. No. 162447)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Loss of trust and confidence, as a valid ground for dismissal, must be substantiated by evidence. Respondent is not a mere rank-and-file employee but a confidential employee. In fact, her position as a Service Representative is classified as "High Priority." She does not only screen and process telephone applications but also recommend them for approval. She likewise handles the transfer of subscriptions from existing clients to new applicants.   With respect to rank-and file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as 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 such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. (PLDT v Buna, G.R. No. 143688)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Tampering of tickets by a chief purser of a ship	The office of a purser involves a high degree of trust and confidence. Private respondent had access to company funds as it was his sensitive duty to issue tickets and accept payments from the passengers of the vessel. Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer’s property. Long years of service, absence of derogatory record and small amount involved are deemed

 

		inconsequential insofar as loss of trust and confidence is concerned. (Eycuban Jr., v Sulpicio Lines Inc., G.R. No. 148410)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Commission of theft by a cash assistant	It is true that the criminal case for qualified theft against Evangelista and the complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners deal with two different issues cognizable by two different tribunals. A labor arbiter or tribunal may legally sustain an employee’s dismissal for dishonesty in stealing company property even if the employee has not been convicted of qualified theft in a criminal case arising from the same act. Even if the employee is acquitted in the criminal case, he may still be legally dismissed for the same act, unless the acquittal exonerates him from any wrongdoing. (Metro Transit Organization v CA, G.R. No. 142133)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Participating in a scam by an assistant manager of a bank to defraud the bank’s clients	The PNB rightfully separated her from work for willful breach of the trust that it reposed in her under the Labor Code. Her defense that the PNB did not suffer any loss is of no moment. The focal point is that she betrayed the trust of the bank in her fidelity to its interest and rules. (Ang v PNB, G.R. No. 178762)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Failure to report overage to the supervisor by an accounting clerk	There are two classes of corporate positions of trust: on the one hand are the managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they

 

are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and other officers or members of the managerial staff; on the other hand are the fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.   In order that an employer may invoke loss of trust and confidence in terminating an employee under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, certain requirements must be complied with, namely: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.18 While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of the employee’s participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust and

 

		confidence demanded by his position. (P.J. Lhuillier , Inc. v Velayo, G.R. No. 198620)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Unauthorized encashment of personal checks by the director of finance of a company at the latter’s sales office	As Finance Director, she is in charge of the custody, handling, care and protection of respondent's funds. The encashment of her personal checks and her private use of such funds, albeit for short periods of time, are contrary to the fiduciary nature of her duties. This Court has held that 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 Corporation, G.R. No. 149416)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	A dean of a university using university resources for his own corporation thereby creating a conflict-of-interest	Gallente’s good intentions, assuming them to be true, were beside the point. Ultimately, the determinant is his deliberate engagement in a venture that would have directly conflicted with the BCU’s interests. Under the prevailing factual circumstances, we find that Gallente’s acts rendered him unworthy of the BCU’s trust and confidence. Hence, we find the BCU’s termination of his employment reasonable and appropriate, and a valid exercise of management prerogative. An employer may not be compelled to continue in its employ a person whose continuance in the service would patently be inimical to its interests. (Baguio Central

 

		University v Gallente, G.R. No. 188267)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	An outlet supervisor asked the shift leader to punch in his time card in order to reflect that he is already onduty although in fact he was still not	It is undisputed that at the time of his dismissal, the petitioner was holding supervisory position after having risen from the ranks since the start of his employment. His position is unmistakably one imbued with trust and confidence as he is charged with the delicate task of overseeing the operations and manpower of three stores owned by GTBI. The second requirement for dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence is further qualified by jurisprudence. The complained act must be work related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer and it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The punching of time card is undoubtedly work related. It signifies and records the commencement of one’s work for the day. The transgression imputed to the petitioner was likewise attended with willfulness. It must be noted that the petitioner misled the labor tribunals in claiming that during his entire 12-year stint with GTBI, he was never meted with any disciplinary action. Records, however, disprove such claim. 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. 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 petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. (Alvarez v Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., G.R. No. 202158)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	A treasurer and finance and accounting manager disclosing confidential company information on her facebook	It must be emphasized at this point that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's dismissal was for a valid cause. "The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee, in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them." The Facebook entry did not mention any specific name of employer/company/ government agency or person. Contrary to petitioners' insistence, the intended subject matter was not clearly identifiable. (Interadent

 

		Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc., v Simbillo, G.R. No. 207315)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Program officer having a romantic and sexual relationship with a co-worker which was against the company’s policy	Guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence, namely: (1) the loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (3) it should not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith. In short, there must be an actual breach of duty which must be established by substantial evidence.   Nonetheless, we cannot support the NLRC’s findings that she committed act/s that breached St. Vincent’s trust. Zaida’s relationship with Marlon, to reiterate, was not wrong, illegal, or immoral from the perspective of secular morality. (Inocente v St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, G.R. No. 202621)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	Comptroller officer solely preparing the salary adjustment schedule without prior approval thereby causing salary distortions among several employees	The employer must adduce proof of actual involvement in the alleged misconduct for loss of trust and confidence to warrant the dismissal of fiduciary rank-and-file employees. However, "mere existence of a basis for believing that [the] employee has breached the trust [and confidence] of [the]

 

		employer" is sufficient for managerial employees.   His position of responsibility on delicate financial matters entailed a substantial amount of trust from respondent. The entire payroll account depended on the accuracy of the classifications made by the Comptroller. Petitioner's act in assigning to himself a higher salary rate without proper authorization is a clear breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	A nurse supervisor helping her relative lessen hospital expenses by not entering in the records medicines and supplies used and eventually replacing these items purchased at lower price	There are two (2) classes of positions of trust. The first class consists of managerial employees. They are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. The second class consists of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc. They are defined as those who in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. Managerial employees refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed, or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff.

 

		As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of employees who perform functions by which their nature requires the employer's full trust and confidence. Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Cadavas v Davao Doctors Hospital , G.R. No. 228765)
Fraud and Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence	An administrator’s extended term beyond her retirement	Loss of trust and confidence, be it a principal or an analogous ground for dismissal, is not justified if it exists in vacuum. As a just cause, it requires an underlying act, deed or conduct from which a reasonable belief of untrustworthiness might be inferred. Without it, dismissals undertaken on such mere belief are arbitrary and will be outlawed.    The only positive act attributable to Gomez which appears to have animated PDMC's complaint from the beginning is the fact that she had merely accepted her extended appointment and entered into the functions of her office immediately thereafter. Yet for the Court to validate on that basis alone, the claim of loss of trust and confidence - either as a principal ground for termination or as an analogous

 

		cause - would be too far a stretch, hence, arbitrary and illegal. (PNOC Development and Management Corporation v Gomez, G.R. No. 220526-27)
Commission of a Crime or Offense	Grave Slander	1.                  The false attribution by the petitioner of robbery (theft) against Sepulveda was made in writing; patently then, petitioner committed libel, not grave slander against Sepulveda. The malicious and public imputation in writing by one of a crime on another is libel.   2.                  Libel committed against immediate superior constitutes serious misconduct which warrants the dismissal from employment. (Torreda v. Toshiba Information Inc. Equipment [Phils.])
Commission of a Crime or Offense	Theft	Allegation of theft should be substantiated, absent any other ground for the employer to lose trust and confidence. (Copy Central Digital Copy Solution v. Domrique)
Commission of a Crime or Offense	Crime Involving Moral Turpitude	1.                  Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances.   2.                  Not all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral turpitude.

 

		(International Rice Research  Institute v. NLRC)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Violation of company rules and regulations	The irregularities or infractions committed by the employee in connection with his work (as a bus driver) constitute a serious misconduct or, at the very least, conduct analogous to serious misconduct. (Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation v. NLRC)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Theft of property owned by a co-employee	1.                  The cause must involve a voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee.   2.                  A cause analogous to serious misconduct is a voluntary and/or willful act or omission attesting to an employee's moral depravity.15 Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. (John Hancock Life Insurance Corp v. Davis)   3.                  Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. (Hocheng Phils v. Farrales)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Incompetence, inefficiency,  or ineptitude	1. It is the prerogative of the school to set high standards of efficiency for its teachers since quality education is a mandate of the Constitution. As long as the standards fixed are reasonable and not arbitrary, courts are not at liberty to set them aside.

 

		(International School of Manila v. International School of Alliance of Educators)   2. Failure to observe prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal. (Realda v. New Age Graphics, Inc.)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Failure to attain work quota	1.                  Employee’s failure to meet sales or work quota falls under the concept of gross inefficiency, which in turn is analogous to gross neglect of duty that is a just cause for dismissal.   2.                  This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest.   3.                  The quota must be imposed in good faith. (Aliling v. Feliciano)   4.                  Failure to perform his duties - i.e., reaching his monthly sales quota - for such a period of time falls under the concept of gross inefficiency. Gross inefficiency is analogous to "gross neglect of duty. (Puncia           v.           Toyota Shaw/Pasig)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Failure to comply with weight standards of employer	1. Weight standards constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. Thus, an employee may be dismissed the moment

 

			he is unable to comply with his ideal weight as prescribed by the weight standards.   2.                  The obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his dismissal from the service.   3.                  Dismissal on the ground of obesity can be predicated on the bona fide occupational qualification. (Yraseugi v. Philippine Airlines Inc.)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	“Attitude problem” is analogous to loss of trust and confidence”		Dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude which constitute sufficient reasons for an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. (Reyes-Rayel v. Philippine        Luen         Thai Holdings)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Negligence		To be a valid ground for dismissal, the neglect of duty must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect, on the other hand, implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time. (CMP Federal Security v. Reyes)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Violation      of      Code      of Discipline i.e. stealing from the company, its employees and officials, or from its contractors, visitors or clients		Theft must be proved with substantial evidence. (Hocheng Phils v. Farrales)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Gross Inefficiency		1. Analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty.

 

		2. "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. 3. Repeated and consistent failure to meet the prescribed AHT mark over a prolonged period of time falls squarely under the concept of gross inefficiency and is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty. (Telephilippines Inc. v. Jacolbe)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Theft of company property	1.                  Involvement in the loss or theft of company cargoes. (Sea Land Service Inc. v. NLRC)   2.                  This fact need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  3. It is sufficient that SeaLand should have a basis for believing that Reyes "breached the trust and confidence reposed in him" by his employer within the meaning of section 283(c) of the Labor Code. (Sea Land Services v. NLRC)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Immorality, drunkenness or fighting inside company premises	1.                  To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in the light of prevailing norms of conduct and the applicable law.   2.                  There is nothing wrong with a teacher falling in love with her pupil and, subsequently, contracting a lawful marriage with him.

 

		The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores. (Qua v. Hon. Jacobo Clave)   3. Regardless of whether the quarrel was purely personal or work related. (Navarro III v. Hon. Damasco)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Sexual harassment is a valid cause for termination.	1.                  As a managerial employee, he is bound by a more exacting work ethics. Failure to live up to this higher standard of responsibility when succumbed to a moral perversity.    2.                  When such moral perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate, the same provides justifiable ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence.   3.                  It is the right, nay, the duty of every employer to protect its employees from over sexed superiors. (Villarama v. NLRC)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Failure to comply with the grooming standards prescribed by the employer.	Violation of the Hotel's Grooming Standards was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass the Hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action. (Nuwhrain Dusit Hotel Charter v. The Hon. CA)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Ban imposed to employee by client of ER	1. The employer could not continue the employment of four of the complainant employees because Petrophil, the client, had prohibited them
		from entering Petrophil’s premises as they were suspected of illegally diverting gasoline. [M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs.NLRC)   2. The refusal of the employer to allow an employee to drive the cargo truck due to the ban imposed against the employee by San Miguel Corporation, the client, to enter its CocaCola plant premises who had found the employee guilty of theft of empty coke bottles, is valid. (A. Marquez, Inc. vs. Leogardo)
Analogous Causes under established Jurisprudence	Filing of Certificate of Candidacy of government employee, employed in a GOCC even without original charter	1.                  Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code applies to officers and employees in government owned or controlled corporation even those organized under the general laws on incorporation and therefore not having an original or legislative charter, and even if they do not fall under the Civil Service Law but under the Labor Code.   2.                  Section 66 constitutes just cause for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor Code, as amended.