Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code: Termination by employer: just causes
The number in brackets, [282], is the article's number before the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code.
Status: In force
What does Article 297 [282] say?
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.
Read the Labor Code on the DOLE website (it uses the article numbers before 2015)
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 297 (Article 282 before the 2015 renumbering) lists the just causes, the reasons tied to the employee's own fault that allow an employer to dismiss. There are five: serious misconduct or willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust, a crime against the employer or the employer's family or representatives, and causes analogous to these. The article does not describe the procedure. The two written notices and the chance to be heard come from the implementing rules and the Supreme Court.
The full text:
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.
In the official text these five causes are paragraphs (a) to (e).
How does it work in real life?
Bea: money from the cash box
Bea, a cashier, is caught taking money from the cash box. This can be fraud or willful breach of trust under paragraph (c). If her employer fires her the same day without any notice or hearing, the dismissal may still be valid, but the employer may be ordered to pay nominal damages, as in Agabon.
Rico: a new job elsewhere
Rico stops reporting for work for two weeks because he has started working at another company, and he does not answer his employer's letters. Both factors of abandonment appear: absence without a valid reason and overt acts showing he does not intend to return. The employer must still send the two notices to his last known address.
Liza: absent for a sick child
Liza is absent for three days because her child is in the hospital, and she explains this when she receives a notice to explain. Absence alone is not abandonment, because the intention to end the employment is the more important factor, and Liza clearly wants her job back.
What does this mean in practice?
- Separation pay is, as a rule, not due when the dismissal is for a just cause (Jaka). Final pay for wages and benefits already earned is a different matter: see the final pay and separation pay guide.
- For how just causes differ from business reasons, see just cause vs authorized cause.
- For resignation, where the employee ends the relationship, see [Article 300 [285]](/law/labor-code/article-300).
- Probationary employees can also be dismissed for a just cause, with the same two-notice rule ([Article 296 [281]](/law/labor-code/article-296)).
- For the full question-and-answer guides, see valid reasons to fire an employee and fired without notice.
What do the five just causes mean?
| Paragraph | Just cause | What the words require |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Serious misconduct or willful disobedience | The misconduct must be serious; the order disobeyed must be lawful and connected with the work |
| (b) | Gross and habitual neglect of duties | The neglect must be both gross and habitual |
| (c) | Fraud or willful breach of trust | The trust must have been placed in the employee by the employer or an authorized representative |
| (d) | Crime or offense against the employer's side | The victim is the employer, an immediate member of the employer's family, or an authorized representative |
| (e) | Analogous causes | A cause similar to the four above |
Is AWOL a just cause for dismissal?
"AWOL" is not a term in the Labor Code. The legal idea is abandonment. In Agabon v. NLRC (2004), the Supreme Court said abandonment "is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer." Two factors must be present: the failure to report for work or absence without a valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, which the Court called "the more determinative factor". See what happens if you go AWOL.
What procedure must the employer follow?
Article 297 does not say. The procedure is in the implementing rules, as amended by DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 and quoted by the Supreme Court in C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa (2024):
- a written notice stating the ground or grounds for termination, with a reasonable opportunity to explain;
- a hearing or conference where the employee can respond, present evidence, or rebut the evidence, with counsel if the employee wants; and
- a written notice of termination stating that grounds have been established.
In Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower (2019), the Supreme Court summed this up: "The employer must comply with the two (2)-notice requirement, while the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard." The Court also said that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proving a valid dismissal rests on the employer.
What happens if there is a just cause but no notice?
The dismissal stays valid, but the employer pays damages. In Agabon v. NLRC, the Supreme Court said "the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual", but the employer "should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights." It fixed nominal damages at P30,000 in that case. In Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot (2005), the Court said the sanction is tempered for just causes, because the dismissal started with an act of the employee, and stiffer for authorized causes under [Article 298 [283]](/law/labor-code/article-298).
If there was no just cause at all, the dismissal is illegal and the employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages ([Article 294 [279]](/law/labor-code/article-294)).
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
- Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693)Agabon v. NLRC explained: a dismissal for a just cause stays valid even without the two notices, but the employer must pay the worker nominal damages.
- Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot (G.R. No. 151378)Jaka v. Pacot explained: a retrenchment for proven losses stays valid without the one-month notice, but the employer pays higher nominal damages.
- Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower (G.R. No. 200811)Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower explained: OFWs let go without cause or notice, why their quitclaims did not bar the case, and full unexpired pay.
Frequently asked questions
What are the just causes for dismissal under Article 297 [282]?
Serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders connected with the work; gross and habitual neglect of duties; fraud or willful breach of trust; a crime or offense against the employer, the employer's immediate family or authorized representatives; and other causes analogous to these.
Is going AWOL a just cause?
Abandonment can be. In Agabon v. NLRC (2004), the Supreme Court called abandonment a form of neglect of duty and a just cause. It needs two things: absence without a valid reason, and a clear intention to end the employment, shown by overt acts.
Does Article 297 require two notices before a dismissal?
The article itself does not list them. The two-notice rule comes from the implementing rules and Supreme Court rulings: a first notice stating the charge, a chance to explain and be heard, and a second notice of the decision.
What if I was dismissed for a just cause but without notice?
Under Agabon v. NLRC (2004), the dismissal stays valid, but the employer must pay nominal damages for skipping due process. The Court fixed them at P30,000 in that case and said the amount depends on the facts.
Do I get separation pay if I am dismissed for a just cause?
As a rule, no. In Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot (2005), the Supreme Court said that for a just cause, payment of separation pay, as a rule, is not required, unlike dismissal for an authorized cause.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?