Related article: The Different Grounds for Termination of Employment
Our existing Labor Laws specified eight (8) just causes for termination of employment. Amongst the grounds expressly provided therefor are “other analogous causes” under paragraph (e) of Article 297. One of the essential requirements in order for the Supreme Court to accept the ground under “other analogous cases” is that the cause must be similar to any of the following:
- Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
- Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
- Fraud or willful breach by the employee of trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; and
- 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 representative;
Nonetheless, Article 297 (e) of the Labor Code talks of other analogous causes or those which are susceptible of comparison to another in general or in specific detail. For an employee to be validly dismissed for a cause analogous to those enumerated in Article 297, the cause must involve a voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee (Cosmos Bottling Corp. vs. Fermin 674 SCRA 310, June 20, 2012).
However, the “other analogous causes” do not give the employer an option to do away the procedural requirements for dismissal, otherwise it will deny the employee of the right to be apprised of the grounds for the termination of his employment without giving him an opportunity to defend himself and refute the charges against him. The “other analogous causes” must always be limited to the similar causes for termination enumerated under Article 297 of the Labor Code.
As most of us are aware, our Labor Laws are tilted heavily in favor of labor. In fact, the Labor Code itself expressly provides that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of labor laws shall be resolved in favor of labor. As such, employers must also be wary of those grounds described as “Anything Under the Sun” cause of dismissal of employees. These grounds are not, in any way, analogous to the other grounds for dismissal of employment. For instance, in an employment contract, the employer plainly cited “other grounds” or “other grounds considered by the management as a ground for termination of employment” for dismissal from employment. It has been recently held by the Supreme Court that, the term “other grounds” is all-encompassing. It makes the employee susceptible to arbitrary dismissal. The clause has the effect of dismissing the employee not only for just or authorized causes but also for anything under the sun that may suit his employer. Thus, the employee is left unprotected and at the mercy of his employer and subjected to the latter’s whims (DIONELLA A. GOPIO, doing business under the name and style, JOB ASIA MANAGEMENT SERVICES vs. SALVADOR B. BAUTISTA, June 06, 2018).
Conditions in Order for the Cause to Fall under “Analogous Causes”
Analogous cases must have an element similar to those found in the specific just causes enumerated. In other words, the “SUN” under the phrase “Anything Under the Sun” must solely refer to the causes enumerated under Article 297 of the Labor Code in order to be a valid cause for dismissal. Moreover, there must be a show of fault or culpability on the part of the employee. Thus, to be considered analogous, a cause must be due to the voluntary and / or willful act or omission of the employee (Nadura vs. Benguet Consolidated, GR No. L-17780). The determination of whether the cause for terminating employment is analogous to any of those enumerated in Article 297 of the Labor Code will depend on the circumstances of each case. In summary, in order to be considered as an “Analogous Cause”, BOTH conditions shall be present:
- Susceptible of comparison with enumerated causes in Article 297
- Voluntary and / or willful act or omission of the employee.
Other Analogous Causes Must be Expressly Stated under the Company Rules and Regulations
Under DOLE Department Order No. 147-15, series of 2015, entitled “Amending the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Book VI of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as Amended”, those causes that are ruled to be analogous to the grounds under Article 297 of the Labor Code shall be expressly indicated in the Company’s Code of Conduct or policy. For example, offenses like theft of co-employee’s properties.
However, we must be reminded that for an employee to be validly dismissed on the ground for violation of Company rules and regulations, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must be: (1) reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge (St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. vs. Sanchez 753 SCRA 218, March 11, 2015).
Analogous Causes Under Established Jurisprudence
Enumerated below are some of the analogous causes for dismissal under our jurisprudence:
- Violation of Company rules and regulations (Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission 689 SCRA 777, January 30, 2013).
- Stealing of co-employee’s credit cards (John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation vs. Davis 564 SCRA 92, September 03, 2008).
- 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 Philippines Corporation vs. Farrales 754 SCRA 31, March 18, 2015).
- Failure to attain work quota may be considered as gross inefficiency of an employee. This is a ground analogous to gross neglect of duties (International School Manila vs. International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) 715 SCRA 343, February 05, 2014).
- Failure to comply with weight standards of employer. This constitutes failure to meet the employer’s reasonable qualifying standards (Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. 569 SCRA 467, October 17, 2008).
- “Attitude Problem” is analogous to loss of trust and confidence (Reyes-Rayel vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings, Corporation 676 SCRA 183, July 11, 2012).
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]