Analogous Causes rule

- cause is not listed but similar to listed case

Ex.

poor performance- amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duty then it

becomes a just cause for dismissal
sleeping on the job if it also amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duty
Ee of LBC he was dispatched to deliver packages. He parked his motor in
front of the office. When he came out, the bike was stolen. He was dismissed
on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of duty.
*Isolated act is the opposite of habitual act
SC: Sustained his dismissal. The lost bike was worth 46k dollars. If the value
of the lost thing is high may be substituted as habituality.
If gross only not habitual no just cause
Not a just cause for dismissal:
o Use of shabu victimless crime
o Misconduct of the part of the teacher to pass failing
students absence of corrupt or improper motive. Only
misconduct. (NLRC v. Salgarino)
o Instructions not communicated does not amount to willful
disobedience.

Cognate Offenses rule

- Several acts past and present belonging to the same class (they all involved
dishonesty etc.) but some of them were punished already. Ees defense double
punishment. Ees defense not tenable. Those offenses were cognate as they have
the same nature.
Q: Why combination of previous punished offenses allowed? Justification for
denying his security of tenure without violating social justice.
A: Despite prior punishment that an Ee still continues to commit the same
offenses as his suspensions did not deter him to the same offense, Ee is beyond
correction. He is incorrigible.

Totality of Infractions rule

Ee committed 4 acts of dishonesty within 1 year. He was suspended for the 3

acts. He was dismissed. Ee defense was double jeopardy. Ees defense not
tenable.
SC: 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. 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.

Cognate Offenses rule

Totality of Infractions rule

Previous offenses have been punished

added
to
present
infractions
for
purposes of justifying the termination of
Ee

Not yet punished but SC is loosely

applying this principle.
If you take the punishment separately,
you can never dismiss. (bungi)
ex.
gross but not habitual
misconduct but not serious

GR: No punishment yet for previous

infractions.
Loss of Trust and Confidence doctrines (see Golden Notes)
OFWs and Seafarers enjoy security of tenure

Illegal Dismissal
Probationary Ee
- permits the Er to test the fitness of Ee for employment
- 6 months which can be prolonged; trial type of employment
Three grounds for separation:
1. Failure to qualify if upon engagement, he was already informed of the
regularization standard rules.
2. Just or Authorized cause
GR: 2 notices; in between ample opportunity to be heard
XPN: May not be given 2 notices (what makes him different from other types
of Ees)
Upon engagement he has been informed of the regularization
standards because disclosure of this takes the place of due process.
XPN to XPN: Self descriptive position no need to disclose regularization
standards and notices
Ex. driver to obey traffic rules is a universal requirement

3. Expiration of the period

Two types of illegal dismissal:

1. Indirect Er gives a notice to dismiss or bars the Ee from reporting or
entering companys premises; it is upon the initiative of the Er to dismiss
2. Constructive initiative is upon the Ee because continued employment has
become impossible at the hands of his Er (SICO- Serious insult, Inhuman
unbearable acts, Crime, Other analogous causes for quitting)
Ex. unlawful transfer, demotion, insensibility, discrimination etc.
Art. 286. Er may lay-off Ees for temporary suspension is limited to 6 months.
Beyond 6 months already constructive dismissal.
Finding of illegal dismissal results to:
1. Immediate reinstatement (Art. 279)
Er take back Ee who was illegal dismissed under the same terms and
conditions without loss of seniority rights or other privileges
The moment Er received LAs decision for reinstatement, must
reinstate within 10 days
If Er appeals the decisiom, even pending appeal must reinstate within
10 days. This is a police power
2. Full backwages
Restoration of salaries and wages which the Ee would have received
had he not been illegally dismissed
How full are backwages?
a. Basis for computation: (last monthly) Salary + Allowances + Benefits
(or monetary equivalent)
If benefits are not indicated SIL & 13th moth pay (automatic)
If allowances are not indicated get the monthly equivalent then add
to salaries
b. No more 3 years limit (Mercury case 3 yrs. limit)
- to discourage Ee not to become burden of the state
c.
No more deductions
d.
To compute backwages:
From the date of withholding of salaries to actual reinstatement
If no reinstatement, will continuously accrue from the date of
withholding of salaries backwages until to finality of judgment (20
yrs.)
e. Earn 6% legal interest (July 1, 2013)
In lieu of reinstatement:
1. Separation pay IF IT IS P DO ACT
Why?
1. reinstatement is not to the best INTEREST of Er-Ee
2. no longer FEASIBLE (position already occupied)
3. INIMICAL to the interest of Er (Ee is thirsty for the position)

4. TRUST and CONFIDENCE cannot be restore overnight

5. STRAINED RELATIONS (due to filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal)
most common
6. Reinstatement is PREJUDICIAL to the Er
7. AGE (Ee already retired; no reinstatement if Ee already retired)
*Kasambahays no reinstatement nor backwages. If illegally dismissed,
the Er must pay all earned salaries plus indemnity of 15 days pay
Art. 149 (DHs reliefs for illegal dismissal) v. Art. 279 (reliefs for
illegal dismissal)