1. Definition

Illegal Dismissal — Definition

Concept

Illegal dismissal is the termination of employment without a valid ground for ending the employment relationship. In regular employment, the employer may terminate an employee only for a just cause or a cause authorized by the Labor Code. A claimed violation of company rules does not, by itself, establish that dismissal was justified. (Labor Code, Art. 300 [279] (Security of Tenure))¹ (Carpio v. Green Era Biotech Corp./mr. Johnson Li * [owner], G.R. No. 267217, 19 November 2025)²

Governing provisions

The Labor Code protects regular employees against termination except for just or authorized cause. Article 298 [283] identifies authorized grounds including installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, and closure or cessation of operations. It also requires written notice to the workers and the labor department at least one month before the intended termination. (Labor Code, Art. 300 [279] (Security of Tenure))¹ (Art. 298 [283], Labor Code)³

Requisites / Rules

• Establish dismissal. An illegal dismissal claim cannot succeed without a showing of an overt or positive act by the employer dismissing the employee. An unsupported assertion of dismissal is insufficient. (Radaza v. Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 272859, 19 February 2026)⁴
• Examine the ground. Once dismissal is in issue, the employer bears the burden of proving that termination was for a just and valid cause. For an asserted loss of trust and confidence, the nature of the employee’s actual duties, rather than the job title alone, matters in determining whether the employee held a position of trust. (Quintanar v. Alburo, G.R. No. 210565, 28 June 2016)⁵ (Angeles v. St. Catherine Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 223582, 7 August 2024)⁶
• Assess employment status where disputed. Regular employment depends on the reasonable connection between the employee’s activities and the employer’s usual business. Talent contracts do not prevent regular status when the workers’ services are necessary and indispensable to that business. (Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 202481, 8 September 2020)⁷

Distinctions

A dismissal without a valid ground differs from a termination for an authorized cause carried out without the required advance notice. In Serrano, redundancy supplied an authorized cause, but the employer failed to give the Article 298 [283] notice; that failure did not make the authorized-cause termination null and void. Serrano is historical, not controlling on the remedy: for a termination based on a proven authorized cause without the required notice, the employer is liable for nominal damages, not full backwages. (Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission and Isetann Department Store, G.R. No. 117040, 27 January 2000)⁸ (Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 March 2005) (Art. 298 [283], Labor Code)³

A regularization suit and an illegal dismissal suit may also be distinct: the latter may arise from a later termination and require different evidence. Bringing both was not forum shopping on the facts considered in Del Rosario. (Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation)⁷

Key doctrines

The employer’s dismissal prerogative remains subject to scrutiny. Even where an employee committed an infraction, dismissal may be too harsh in light of the circumstances; company rules imposing dismissal do not automatically bind the Court. (Suataron v. Hawaiian Philippine Company, Inc., G.R. No. 274537, 18 November 2025)⁹ (Carpio v. Green Era Biotech Corp./mr. Johnson Li * [owner])²

Exceptions

A closure is not an authorized ground under Article 298 [283] if it is undertaken to circumvent the Labor Code provisions governing termination. Conversely, where no employer act of dismissal is shown, the claim fails before the validity of a supposed ground can be assessed. (Art. 298 [283], Labor Code)³ (Radaza v. Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc.)⁴

Bar tip

Identify the employer’s act of termination first. Then determine employment status, the asserted ground, who must prove it, and whether the facts support that ground; treat a notice defect separately from the existence of an authorized cause. (Radaza v. Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc.)⁴ (Quintanar v. Alburo)⁵ (Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission and Isetann Department Store, historical on the remedy)⁸ (Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 March 2005)