TOPIC: Other causes analogous to the foregoing [causes for termination] STATUTE: ARTICLE 282, Labor Code.

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.

DEFINITION: One is analogous to another if it is susceptible of comparison with the latter, either in general as in some specific detail, or has a relationship with the latter. [Lim v NLRC, G.R. No. 118434 (1996)] The determination of whether the cause for terminating employment is analogous to any of those enumerated in Art 282 will depend on the circumstances of each case. [Nadura vs. Benguet Consolidated, GR No. L-17780 (1962)] To be considered analogous, a cause must be due to the voluntary and/ or willful act or omission of the employee. Thus, illness cannot be considered analogous to the just causes enumerated in the aforesaid article because illness is neither a voluntary now willful act of the employee. [Nadura vs. Benguet Consolidated, GR No. L-17780 (1962)] Analogous cases must have an element similar to those found in the specific just causes enumerated; they must show fault or culpability on the part of the employee. [Alcantara (2009)] TEST: 1. Susceptible of comparison with enumerated causes in Article 282 2. Voluntary and/ or willful act or omission of the employee. ANALOGOUS CAUSES: Gross Inefficiency/Incompetence: Why analogous: 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 [Lim v NLRC, GR No. L-17780 (1962)] Inefficiency is the inability or failure to attain work goals or work quotas either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period or by producing unsatisfactory report. [Buiser et al. vs. Leogardo, G.R. No L-63316 (1984)]

Although incompetence or inefficiency as a ground for a valid dismissal is not expressly written in Article 282 as one of the just causes in dismissing an employee, this ground is considered as analogous to those enumerated under said article. Additionally,

incompetence is a ground specifically provided for in Section H of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract 32 to validly dismiss an erring seaman. Such incompetence or inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results.[Skippers United v. Pacific, Inc. vs. Jerry Maguad [G.R. 166363 (2006)] Crime committed against co-employee Analogous to: Article 282 (c) crimes against the person of the employer or any immediate member of his family or his authorized representative, and Article 282 (d), loss of trust

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 vs. J. Davis, G.R. G.R. No. 169549 ( 2008)]

Theft of company property Analogous to: Article 282 (c) crimes against the person of the employer or any immediate member of his family or his authorized representative, and Article 282 (d), loss of trust

A review of the record convinces an unbiased mind that Reyes was involved in the loss or theft of the medicinal oil. This fact need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that Sea-Land 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. As correctly stated by Sea-Land in its letter to Reyes, the company, "as a measure of self-protection was left with no recourse but to dismiss you". [Sea Land Services Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-68212( 1985)]

Ban imposed to employee by client of ER Analogous to: Article 282 (a)

The employer could not continue the employment of four of the complainant employees because Petrophil, the client, had prohibited them from entering Petrophils premises as they were suspected of illegally diverting gasoline. [M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, 117 SCRA 544, G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 [1982] The refusal of the employer to allow an employee to drive 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 of guilty of theft of empty coke bottles, is valid. [ A. Marquez, Inc. vs. Leogardo , Jr., 128 SCRA 544, G.R. No. 63227 (1984)]

Attitude problems/quarrelsome/bossy Analogous to: Article 282 (c), loss of trust

Petitioner's averments on private respondent's disagreeable character "quarrelsome, bossy, unreasonable and very difficult to deal with" are supported by the various testimonies of several co-employees and students of the schoolThe conduct she exhibited on that occasion smacks of sheer disrespect and defiance of authority and assumes the proportion of serious misconduct or insubordination, any of which constitutes just cause for dismissal from employment. [Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 101438. (1992)] The performance appraisal report of respondent for the period of January to June 1997, besides stating that she was still "hard to deal with," described her as "belligerent," one who had "a negative presence which affects the morale of the entire unit," and who "pick[ed] fights with peers and other employees even without provocation." The evaluation of respondent cited above finds corroboration in her admission that "she may have been tactless and insolent in dealing with her superior. When an employee, despite repeated warnings from the employer, obstinately

refuses to curtail a bellicose inclination such that it erodes the morale of co-employees, the same may be a ground for dismissal for serious misconduct. [Citibank, N.A. vs. NLRC G.R. No 159302 (2008)] 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. 18 It is a situation analogous to loss of trust and confidence that must be duly proved by the employer. [Heavylift Manila v CA, G.R. No. 154410 (2005)] Violation of safety rules Analogous to: Article 282(a) No smoking rule - It has been proved and is not disputed that Alcantara was an experienced painter and, having worked with the petitioner for some time, he knew that smoking in a painting booth is extremely hazardous. Such smoking has been shown to be dangerous, because the painting booth contained inflammable dusts and materials and there were painters who could proceed to take up a spray gun and paint without warning, thereby multiplying the danger of configuration from any flame. Indeed, the petitioner insisted in the rule against smoking in the painting booth to protect the very lives of its employees, especially those in the painting booth. We are constrained to hold that Alcantara's offense was grave and warranted his dismissal. [Northern Motors vs. NLU, G.R. No. L-10022 (1958)] Violation of company code of conduct or regulations Analogous to: Article 282(a) Obesity/weight beyond the standards of the company - A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than that they constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. Tersely put, an employee may be dismissed the moment he is unable to comply with his ideal weight as prescribed by the weight standards. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article 282 (e) of the Labor Code. [Yrasuegi v PAL (G.R. No. 168081 (2008)]