In addition to the just causes mentioned in the Labor Code, just causes are also found in prevailing

jurisprudence. The following may be cited as just causes in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence:
1. Violation of Company Rules and Regulations or Company Code of Discipline.
2. Theft of property owned by a co-employee as distinguished from company-owned property which is
considered serious misconduct. 3. Incompetence, inefficiency or ineptitude. 4. Failure to attain work
quota. 5. Failure to comply with weight standards of employer. 6. Attitude problem.

Is dismissal based on Company Code of Discipline or Company Rules and Regulations illegal? No.

In Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation v. NLRC, the Supreme Court pronounced that the Court of
Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal of private respondent, a bus driver of petitioner, was illegal
because the “grounds upon which petitioners based respondent’s termination from employment, viz.:
‘hindi lahat ng schedule nailalabas,’ [‘]mababa ang revenue ng bus, laging kasama an[g] asawa sa byahe’
and ‘maraming naririnig na kwento tungkol sa kanya, nag-uutos ng conductor para kumita sa hindi
magandang paraan[,]’ xxx are not among those enumerated under Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code
as just causes for termination of employment.”

The irregularities or infractions committed by private respondent in connection with his work as a bus
driver constitute serious misconduct or, at the very least, conduct analogous to serious misconduct,
under the above-cited Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code. The requirement in the company rules that:
‘3. to obey traffic rules and regulations as well as the company policies. 4. to ensure the safety of the
riding public as well as the other vehicles and motorist (sic)’ is so fundamental and so universal that any
bus driver is expected to satisfy the requirement whether or not he has been so informed.

Serious misconduct implies that it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely
trivial or unimportant.

Deceiving a customer for personal gain is a just cause for termination.

Abandonment is not provided for in the Labor Code but it is jurisprudentially considered a form of
neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for termination of employment under Article 297(b) [282(b)] of the
Labor Code.

2. REQUISITES. To constitute abandonment, two (2) elements must concur, namely: 1) The employee
must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and 2)
There must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee
relationship manifested by some overt act.

When what is prayed for in the complaint is separation pay and not reinstatement, the filing of
complaint does not negate abandonment.

FRAUD
1. REQUISITES. The following are the requisites of this ground: 1. There must be an act, omission, or
concealment; 2. The act, omission or concealment involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or confidence
justly reposed; 3. It must be committed against the employer or his/her representative; and 4. It must be
in connection with the employees' work.

Failure to deposit collection constitutes fraud.

Restitution does not have absolutory effect.