Why do they say that Phils Labor laws are pro-employee?

What are the basis for this description?
Although I can see some practical examples-- for example in our office, no matter how "low" your performance is, I have not heard of someone getting terminated-- just usually change roles, or depts.

So what are the usual basis for getting terminated aside from criminal or unethical stuff (bribes, harrassment, etc)?

Consistently low or poor performance will eventually cause employment to be terminated.

Same with attendance issues.

They fall under the clause "Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties"

So what are the usual basis for getting terminated aside from criminal or unethical stuff (bribes, harrassment, etc)?

- The Labor Code suggest that an employee can be terminated by 'Just and Authorized Causes'. Look it up.

So what are the usual basis for getting terminated aside from criminal or unethical stuff (bribes, harassment, etc)?

- The Labor Code suggest that an employee can be terminated by 'Just and Authorized Causes'. Look it up.

To Answer your question... as the title of this query.

The law views Labor as 'at a disadvantage' against companies/business entities/business owners. As such, the Labor Code was promulgated to protect labor.

HOWEVER, nowhere in the Labor Code that it states that the same Code is pro-labor. The Code was promulgated to BALANCE both the right of Labor and companies/owners/entities.