In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that

the dismissal of the employee is for just cause [16]and failure to do so would mean
that the dismissal is not justified. A dismissed employee is not required to prove
his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[17] The
determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised
with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.[18]
[16] PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153031, December 14, 2006
citing Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson, G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November
11, 2005, 474 SCRA 761, 771.
[17] Starlite Plastic Industrial Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78491, 16 March 1989, 171
SCRA 315, 323.
[18] Fil Pride Shipping Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 97068, 5 March 1993, 219
SCRA 576, 581.

In Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation, v. Ativo, this Court reiterated the

25

standards that must be observed in determining whether a waiver and quitclaim has
been validly executed:

Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy.
If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable
settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned
simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear
proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible
person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face,
that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But
where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily,
with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for
the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be
recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. (emphasis supplied)
26

In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court ruled that:

27
 It is highly unlikely and incredible for a man of petitioner’s position and
educational attainment to so easily succumb to private respondent
company’s alleged pressures without even defending himself nor
demanding a final audit report before signing any resignation letter.
Assuming that pressure was indeed exerted against him, there was no
urgency for petitioner to sign the resignation letter. He knew the nature of
the letter that he was signing, for as argued by respondent company,
petitioner being "a man of high educational attainment and qualification,
x x x he is expected to know the import of everything that he executes,
whether written or oral.” 28

R.A. No. 7641, otherwise known as The Retirement Pay Law, only applies in a
situation where (1) there is no collective bargaining agreement or other
applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an
employee; or (2) there is a collective bargaining agreement or other applicable
employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an employee, but it
is below the requirements set for by law. The reason for the first situation is to
prevent the absurd situation where an employee, who is otherwise deserving, is
denied retirement benefits by the nefarious scheme of employers in not providing
for retirement benefits for their employees.

The law and jurisprudence guarantee to every employee security of tenure. This textual and the
ensuing jurisprudential commitment to the cause and welfare of the working class proceed from the
social justice principles of the Constitution that the Court zealously implements out of its concern for
those with less in life. Thus, the Court will not hesitate to strike down as invalid any employer act that
attempts to undermine workers’ tenurial security. All these the State undertakes under Article 279
(now Article 293)22 of the Labor Code which bar an employer from terminating the services of an
employee, except for just or authorized cause and upon observance of due process.

Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established

and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.28 - Yabut v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No.
190436, January 16, 2012, 663 SCRA 92, 10

To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 of the Labor
Code, the employee’s misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and
not merely trivial or unimportant.29 - Sang-an v. Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc.,
G.R. No. 173189, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 534, 542.
Additionally, the misconduct must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties showing
him tobe unfit to continue working for the employer.30 - Tomada, Sr. v. RFM Corporation-Bakery Flour
Division, supra note 28, at 391.

Further, and equally important and required, the act or conduct must have been performed with
wrongful intent.31 - Echeverria v. Venutek Medika, Inc., 544 Phil. 763, 770 (2007).

To summarize, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following
elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of
the employee’s duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
employer;32 and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. – Imasen Philippine
Manufacturing Corporation vs Alcon, et. al. G.R. 194884 October 22, 2014

The Labor Code, specifically Article 277(b), guarantees the right of an

employee to security of tenure. It provides that

ART. 277. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. x x x

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of

tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just
and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice
under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker
whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing
a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and
regulations x x x.

Under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, gross and habitual neglect of duty by the
employee of his duties is a just cause for the termination of the latters
employment. To warrant removal from service, however, the negligence should not
merely be gross but also habitual.[30] In this case, assuming the absences and
tardiness of private respondent Asegurado to be habitual, can they also be
categorized as gross?

Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight

care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[31] Though there may have
been times when private respondents absences were undertaken without the
necessary approved leave applications, nevertheless, she would send word for
when these would occur. Moreover, quite telling is the fact that nowhere in the
memoranda sent to private respondent was there any mention of a complaint
relating to the quality of her work. As the present case does not show the presence
of one of the two requisites to make the finding of negligence a just cause for
dismissal. At the most, private respondent should have been further suspended
from service for taking for granted that her leave would be approved by the
personnel department of petitioner corporation. The penalty of dismissal is too
harsh, considering that private respondent had been with the company for five
years and, apparently, the management had no complaint as regards the formers
quality of work. – Acebedo Optical, et. al vs. NLRC, et. al. G.R. No. 150171 July
17, 2007

By failing to prove the existence of the company rules in due time, i.e., non-
presentation of an authenticated copy, unarguably the best evidence, casts
skepticism on the factual basis of the charge of violation thereof; arguably,
therefore, it cannot be said that the assailed conduct can be considered gross
neglect of duty.

It is indeed true that administrative agencies, like the NLRC, are not bound
by the technical rules of procedure and evidence in the adjudication of cases.[33]
However, this procedural liberty must not be interpreted to mean an
unfettered license to put forth assertions without at least presenting tangible proof
to back them up. Otherwise, such assertions would just be allegations, and
allegations are not evidence.[34] - Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 90, 97-98 (2000).